












i a —- = 

- eo SG < < 
ic a <e i (eC “ae cy 
=. mee 
1 < EE ek =< 
ae, a 
| << @ as @GEa o « ¢ 


<a 
«= 


7 











i< <CS GES L< 








(car ae ‘ 
: << COSC > = 
Ce < <n < pres 
KC EEE CTS 
DS a et 
cee ao ge eS ens Be 
Peacet ¢ OC Png P Tks ; a a oy - _ Ree Ce 8 
<< <a < xe ¥ Cte Ce Ee SE ieee a « me 
Ce REE eg OE MEE Re BRE IEG g 












‘ “A 





Ser oS pe 


OK s.. Bic < Chee: we 


EE *e aaa 





ns 


i" 







+ 
lan 

A 
a 


? y 
i 


ee 


WY W Waar 
R 
ai 


sen 





a ce gt 

















< Ne La <@ CEQ 
- < 5 aug tye an. ‘C <@ << 6. _< 
i ~ cS a” - Qe. —< EE 
£ CCL Ges < 
Ese Lue ME 4 i <S a G = 
te in ~ a ES —s 
i hee: Cie : ca as 
— oe ea & Ce eae | 
oe £ - VOGT: co a (Can c < "t os ‘ak 
Be ve Si. 2" ar 


























RC CK CO, NC EG Dian. Ok, KGET 
Sl ee KEK SE AC a i x CK KE < a CK S A ES A 
ge ita «Page ee 
CMEC CME EER <a © (CCC mm 
CC KEE Ss oo ee CM COC CEE CEC = <a ESS Cac « 
CCRC CRE CC OSE MEG (CO CE is OCCT 
Ra ee eK ay ANGE, SSL SG, SMS ES ccc Ss SOR. CCC OEE C 
LG CK cS SCS = SMS Lg CE EC « < Cc —— 
Mee § CECE, S SSS COCR C in 
cx Pe en <a sss S. ae exe <a kate OCS | 
Ce Ca 6 KC K << QE CE S CLE « 
EC ame OCS C&G ms <a fi QS xe <d (< eis <¢ Cog 
CX CCK cK <a SE ECR CE REC 
Sa <ae a <ec EEE €E “a Ce oe © CCG 
, KE IK j —— CS OEE a, << <a 
@ . < Se ACES KEKE Ga < Cerca. ec Co 
i. ce <= <a ee CK GCs <a CCE « <<< 
Ma RE EY KER <a 
KE SK COC EEOC MOET 
<< << CK CC <@r< , 





a pe SS <<a 3 


Ec 
SE: 
CEE EEK 
SSS «ce 


: sae 
C Ki (EC EEK a 
EC CG Ee Ce 
CC ECC ECE CE Cc 
CS OEE EE EEE GL OME 
Cl MEER ERE Cm << 
‘ (SEE GEG KC < KG 
KCEE: Ex Ql << Cae 
— <a C Ce Sea Ck eae 
CK CEC CE . ENSESSSE EEC 
CK GOS am Ke Ce EES SS " 
SC KES c KC GREK CE CC 
Cx CQ LR GER MC OG Ca 
Og; Ct OES Gi Ga Ghee ace SS 8e 
GN Kk ea « Get aaa Kec ae 
SC CES = — aEecce 


a a 
eK GK i Sag > ae 


Er ECCS 
ca ae aa 
& Ce 
CEC HK CC <a C GS 


a ae! a a a i de aia 











CMe CEG COM ail ae 
<i me Cae ac a ae ae 
Cam aCe Ke rae < paar 


oe ee Ca < 
ne Sf ess oo Ke < ceo > 














































CGO Ge an eae COE RT OE a: 


‘ Se Oat > Bre F ; bp EX EE Ce ~<a 
ean a KA ee OS ge = 2 . : _oe ce ae 
(ae ec * « Y (GRC Ke eG ‘a anu Ce ere sn AU be SES. SEES . 
ax « eae @ <= aS A COE CS Cen : ce res —- $ « eee Ci a «@ « od 
Y La TX GEC KK «CECE =x as cer « r — SASS \ 
ae «cd Ce OM GER EE CC Ce ‘ ..< | Ca a@ 
CSCC GR EC GE EK Care 
— <@e Cece Ge 46 G 
aa Ke ae 
a Caer ea 
Y < on a 


Kec 


Se Sa a <n a 
reser ~=Return this book on or before the a ‘<emre ca 
Latest Date stamped below. op — SK 


University of Illinois Library 


a OE ET 

CEL ae 
EERE CG 
ERE CREE 
Se <MRRKE Cl 
Ge KER 


< CE, 





if 


L161—H41 Re cr ae oe 
Ria es « ‘KeKee caer 
Kc meg “a LR AERC CAGES <c 
ae Ce ge RO ORR RK 
eer SE eer em veee 
Cara ce, “SM OK Cece 
(Cece SMS «KK GE <x 
<a (SS CR EE 
a @G0e GkGw cicada ec ae a GC KE ge AN = SCG CKO 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2021 with funding from 
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/worksofdanielweb03webs_0 | 





A 


oe 
i 

dé 
2 


- 


ass 
= 
































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































THE 


WORKS 


OF 


DANIEL WEBSTER. 


WVOrla) ME IT 


TENTH EDITION. 


pee. ON: 
LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY. 
1857. 


Entered according to Act of “ongrexs, in the year 1851, by 
GEORGE W. GorDon anD JaMEs W. Paice, 


in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 


DEDICATION 


OF THE THIRD VOLUME. 


TO 


Pec ieee oh shOY WEBSTER. 


My DEARLY BELOVED WIFE: 

I cannor allow these volumes to go to the press, without containing 
a tribute of my affections, and some acknowledgment of the deep in- 
terest that you have felt in the productions which they contain. You 
have witnessed the origin of most of them, not with less concern, cer- 
tainly, than has been felt by their author; and the degree of favor with 
which they may now be received by the public will be as earnestly 
regarded, I am sure, by you as by myself. 

The opportunity seems, also, a fit one for expressing the high and 
warm regard which I ever entertained for your honored father, now 
deceased, and the respect and esteem which I cherish towards the 
members of that amiable and excellent family to which you belong. 


DANIEL WEBSTER. 


















2 eae ; R ; 5 biviculieide 


——_- Pe re Ae as ae -T 
j a AS Fira’ SPE y ne oer ete a she Sait iss ical snd yr -— eal wast ‘nn 
> ¥ - ‘s@ + & 4 4 wd ¢ 

4 ‘ i eee! r 5 

a ee 8) OR? Pel ole Tati ed ge 2 SAVIO}? eid fe a 
a" ae |e x ; ; 2 


“ Bi 2 eitie - , (ag ) . i> ak, 4 aes | aed LF ci ny ates 
<email eee a , oe sb 
3" AURORIRBS Si lhee Shadi dete aaa i inode 


fina ty ere ee weaned 'YR 4 - sit ane <e ue Iiuerrooet aera p 
. A day algiesatl to ox ode 1 


‘ wr ee We we rar : 
vereest i -ke ae ' ‘ ; ; r Oe thd «ASG: yi ths ad cht 
ad 7 


_ 
me ar 


cee“! iS scam Ml gt 


a 
ab! 
am 
» 
» 
>» 
oo 
ws 
et, 
i 
wt 
gre 
iy 
wal 
— 
wl 


sae 


furt sy 


e pr: Bie om 4 a dl £ we) oe” beer ae, ay 
Bis sign at sean SoM Rb fete Se ns 


fl 
~ 
~ 
cs 
. 
3 
* 
~ 
rd 
‘ 
“ 
a 
aad 
8 
«ae 
‘° 


i 


PRON e taitietihly: «three Ail Bey tro i aT sistent. af ts, ie sty 


t as [me , * i weoA z b. 
\ rer; t SHES UF | 20 ore cabs. ie : "hah se Ae i r ves . Si tw bby 
} i 
j 
‘ ¥ i 
‘ ¥ ; A ee * 4°25 r 
‘ " i 
1 ”, mM a 2 : a ~ : ; ‘ F 7 
; Weiss Ths % ht eines Acre 
‘ eeGA 2 2 Srk 2. Jae ie MOD é “Atl Che Lick oh 


oe : ‘ , ‘ entar’ oral 
‘ao pepe Boole ated eerttaiaas: (15) So vemlk adh Seeks 


. ; , : £18 bse 


Bok eid iwhe” Pe elabe e S “omsad is 
ao oo 82 betiol edt do rovieatee soa to sand elt, iis ns t 
¢ lool Sty ax 8 ave wild To WOE Lahe> ois: bated 

_ 


Cs : . ‘ 





CONTENTS 


Cre re EUR Ds VO LU ME. 


SPEECHES IN THE CONVENTION TO AMEND THE CONSTITU- 


TION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE . : 3 : : ; ; 


Remarks on the Report of a Select Committee relative to Oaths and Sub- 
scriptions, made in the Convention on the 4th of December, 1820. 


BASIS OF THE SENATE . F ; ; i : : ; 


Speech in the Convention on a Resolution proposing to divide the Common- 
wealth into Districts according to Population, for the Choice of Senators, 
delivered on the 15th of December, 1820. 


INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY . ; : : ; : 


Remarks made on the 30th of December, 1820, upon a Resolution to make 
the Officers of the Judiciary removable by the Governor and Council upon 
the Address of Two Thirds, instead of a Majority, of each Branch of the 
Legislature. 


SPEECHES IN CONGRESS. 


Bank oF THE UNITED STATES ‘ 2 ; 7 ‘ 


A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, on 
the 2d of January, 1815. 


Tue Lecat Currency . y 7 5 a ‘ 7 


A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, on 
the 26th of April, 1816, on the Collection of the Revenue in the Legal 
Currency of the Country. 


a* 


Pace 


3 


26. 


35 


48 


v1 CONTENTS. 


Tue REVOLUTION IN GREECE . ° . . e ad 


; 60 


A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, on 
the 19th of January, 1824. 


THe TARIFF . L é : i : : ; ‘ 3 94 


A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the Unitec States, on 
the Ist and 2d of April, 1824. 


THE JupDIcIARY : J - ; ; : A : : 150. 


Remarks made on the 4th of January, 1826, in the House of Representatives 
of the United States, on the Bill to amend the Judiciary System. 


Tue Panama Mission . ; : ; ; : : : 178 


A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, 
on the 14th of April, 1826. 


REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS ; ’ ; : : : «> 218 


A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 25th of April, 
1828, on the Bill for the Relief of the Surviving Officers of the Revo- 
lution. 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. . : : : : 228 


Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 9th of May, 1828, on the 
Tariff Bill. 


“ First Speeco on Foort’s Reso.utTion . ‘ : : . 248 
Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 20th of January, 1830. 


Seconp SreEcH ON Foort’s RESOLUTION . n : 3 ee ya 


Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 26th and 27th of 
January, 1830. 


Last Remarks on Foot’s REsouuriIon . ; : : . 343 
Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 27th of January, 1830. 


Tut NomiInaTION oF Mr. Van ‘Buren As MINISTER TO ENGLAND 356 


Remarks made in Secret Session of the Senate of the United States, on the 
24th of January, 1832, on the Nomination of Mr. Van Buren as Minister 
to Great Britain. 


Tue APpPporTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION } : : ~ » 369 


A Report made in the Senate of the United States, on the 5th of April, 1832, 
on the Bill from the House of Representatives for the Apportionment of 
Representation. 


CONTENTS. 


Bank oF THE UNITED StaTES i c : > : : 


A Speech delivered in the Senate, on the 25th of May, 1832, on the Bill for 
renewing the Charter of the Bank of the United States. 


Furtuer REMARKS ON THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES . 
Made in the Senate, on the 28th of May, 1832. 


Tur PRESIDENTIAL VETO OF THE UNITED States Bank BILu 


A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 11th of July, 
1832, on the President’s Veto of the Bank Bill. 


Tue ConsTITUTION NoT A COMPACT BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES 


A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 16th of Feb- 
ruary, 1833, in Reply to Mr. Calhoun’s Speech on the Bill “further to 
provide for the Collection of the Duties on Imports.” 


Tue REMOVAL OF THE DEPoOsITS ’ : 


Remarks, on different Occasions, on the Removal of the Deposits, and on the 
Subject of a National Bank, delivered in the Senate of the United States, 
in the Course of the Session of 1833 - 34. 


Vu 


391 


407 


416 


448 


506 


é steal ae o 


5, ila tet $ aie x 
ei tang tion CaR Dealt 


rea 


i 


AAHOGAY 


BRE 





SPEECHES 


IN THE 


CONVENTION TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION 


OF THE 


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


VOL. III. | Pas 























‘ . a . Pi i aD, oh 


) ' 
= A 2 ¥ s 
iJ ' 
* : P , va 
i * . - * 
foe 
o . 
piwk * = 
f * 7 i he A 
' é 
Phy duis’ 4 
ad “ u 
iy “ + a ' : 
i 
t 
- ee 7 
‘ ’ 





: es eS re np fadlendsits banal it 
tah PY aT Ee eS SA eee 38) TE if ne 
> ; 


4 . are «i yng iA) Ss Tae om As CAE cad iit ae hon 


. 


hogy: ad Lie nani F eit) 4  okeatet BONY, 
idee LL OAT TRUE ter Reed ¥a5 jinn) ah a One® Bitincerd, tio ath 

ey atl tts. tb Kao be af ‘equa . “Mugsselmtaatas Leh Bspuke ban bag sib 
POL (ostis eg 2b 109th OF Digna? SANS Hovis yarinengs ase )aas 


ot 
' fol bo DULL ee GENT AEC 2S \ eDeret pete Dans 3 , eT? mah Yar ant, 








i. J] 
Py ‘ - i is POP 
rhs = © ; r 
at vow vinti #4 seiolar yi 28  pawods ae : 
; . 
: a} » 5 > <en Oe’ eet > ed 3 PEO ly re 
ORS TE, Ce EBS ity tet Por5 Oi: OF SII ea’ bal 


4 ’ 
¥ P ye -* , , ‘ v 
sf en Raa Sei eesen Sie IaH So “ie eifer. “ihe * ae 


- ‘ ft at eet . rs . ‘ sy’ te. “ ry's vr +. fT “5 era Bot 
. . ve . “ ; pegs 


. Spit oe ees ativan. Deen nad aie inenep’ 
i eas a , eee set “Feet ts ris wa i ISAS * yy ghod ik? an 


Sie P 
Pai ; reyes Ei vege nh Dat ma) ~2¢@ Shee steiesant bate > yniteixe: ort Jo areit 
fd ¢ _ tt t 
use? vn te of, ois forttsdar hiongyt frag: PRAMS of sitesi 


w dug adhe rod? ptiodingy och. of “ideuaely Seal ait he 
ote 33 Hy ee G dia ia oni ats re, rou e RHOR Hey ee i ie + > uve ede 
Sains Il selienues aot bob es BoM pease al : 
magueds yh ohens arr tp $24 ee pats tigel> BW, -gaszides VE he 
oe aol enouypvedce bite “fare BB 2p ive gi a: “ae i: bearccuamuoee 


o ) "Set . L athe 
fue vdinod! .Aleawi@amins Soaht j Ot Acveniceeila, | 





= 


aE Tey os oat ele fd. viel ok eal 
Fol@e Gaia t hci i.e euees 3 SOiS si bOt Tt 7 SF é eA mts 





aati Peete & ies at to $7 vias we 
4 ‘ 
a-M névt 4s 


# Ye TA LTS we ing vie eet : re eaaraes: % 
oy eid sSdrs pasa tts & 4 gee 


« 7 ‘ TS 


ee a ¢ ev ure ' w 


Py: i . iw Dp id “A ‘ Paks 


Bocce ts, ataproenigt ee eE \awearter tl iv fs 
ar TAFUIOS at Sit suey selsasl eae hy eign 


ise = re ‘ y EA 





‘ 
, 4 4 2 
~ - 2 
F . « 
+ ‘~ 
: ." + ’ 
§ ia = the* 
) = ‘ _ 
~ “J ’ 

\ . i ite 

la * . U , iy af 

? > = : 

bia Big ay ; , To, as wi DS 
a y* =< si = ; +2) 0) eee >= 


QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE.* 


In consequence of the separation of what is now the State of Maine 
from Massachusetts, in the year 1820, it became necessary to make 
some change in the constitution of the Commonwealth. The opportuni- 
ty was thought a favorable one for a general revision of that instrument, 
which had undergone no amendment since its adoption in 1780. Dele- 
gates were accordingly chosen by the people to meet in convention for 
this purpose, the several towns and districts in the Commonwealth (there 
were then no cities) being allowed as many delegates as they were 
respectively entitled to send members to the House of Representat.ves 
of the State. Mr. Webster was among the delegates chosen by the 
town of Boston, and took an active and distinguished part in the busi- 
ness of the convention, both in committee-room and in debate. 

As soon as the body was organized by the choice of its officers, the 
chief provisions of the existing constitution were referred to select com- 
mittees, instructed to consider and report whether any, and if any, what 
amendments were desirable to be made in them. ‘The subject of the 
official oaths and subscriptions required by the sixth chapter of the sec- 
ond part of the constitution was referred to a committee for this purpose, 
of which Mr. Webster was chairman. <A report was made by this com- 
mittee, recommending that, in lieu of all oaths and subscriptions then re- 
quired, a simple oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth, together with 
the oath of office, should be taken by all persons chosen or appointed to 
office. ‘The most important feature of these proposed changes was, that 
a profession of belief in the Christian religiun was no longer required as 
a qualification for office. 

The resolutions reported by this committee became the subject of a 
discussion, in the course of which, on the 4th of December, 1820, Mr. 
Webster made the following remarks : — 


* Remarks, made on the 4th of December, 1820, in the Convention of Delegates 
chosen to revise the Constitution of Massachusetts, upon the Resolution relating 
‘o Oaths of Office. 


4 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


Ir is obvious that the principal alteration proposed by the first 
resolution is the omission of.the declaration of belief in the 
Clristian religion as a qualification for office, in the cases of 
the governor, lieutenant-governor, councillors, and members of 
the legislature. I shall content myself on this occasion with 
stating, shortly and generally, the sentiments of the select com- 
mittee, as I understand them, on the subject of this resolution. 

Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first 
place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security 
of their government and its due administration demand it, to 
require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qual- 
ification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of 
the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the peo- 
ple had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular 
and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the peo- 
ple. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; 
and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will 
grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what 
conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than 
the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must 
depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opin- 
ions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for 
ofhce. No man can be said to have a right to that which others 
may withhold from him at pleasure. ‘There are certain rights, 
no doubt, which the whole people, or the government as repre- 
senting the whole people, owe to each individual in return for 
that obedience and personal service, and those proportionate 
contributions to the public burdens, which each individual owes 
to the government. ‘These rights are stated with sufficient ac- 
curacy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this consti- 
tution. “ Hach individual in society has a right to be protected 
by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according 
to the standing laws.” Here is no right of office enumerated; no 
right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All 
bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, 
ihey have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which 
they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their consti- 
tution, prescribe certain qualifications for office, respecting age, 
property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely as such, 
were a right which each individual under the social compact 


QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE. 5 


was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded. 
Acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be sub- 
ject, to any such limitation. ‘The right of being protected in 
life, liberty, and estate is due to all, and cannot be justly denied 
to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State. 
These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as condi- 
tions for office, on the ground that office is not what any man 
can demand as matter of right, but rests in the confidence and 
good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to 
me too plain to be questioned, that the right of office is a mat- 
ter of discretion, and option, and can never be claimed by any 
man on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow, 
then, that those who confer office may annex any such condi- 
tions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to 
another, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain 
personal qualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground 
of complaint is given to nobody. Between two candidates, oth- 
erwise equally qualified, the people at an election may decide in 
favor of one because he is a Christian, and against the other 
because he is not. ‘They may repeat this preference at the next 
election, on the same ground, and may continue it from year to 
year. 3 

Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this pref- 
erence, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse 
in any instance to depart from it, they have an equally clear 
right to prescribe this qualification beforehand, as a rule for their 
future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it. 
If they deem it necessary, they may so say, beforehand. If the 
public will may require this qualification at every election as it 
occurs, the public will may declare itself beforehand, and make 
such qualification a standing requisite. That cannot be an un- 
just rule, the compliance with which, in every case, would be 
right. This qualification has nothing to do with any man’s 
conscience. If he dislike the condition, he may decline the office, 
in like manner as if he dislike the salary, the rank, or any thing 
else which the law attaches to it. 

But however clear the right may be (and I can hardly sup 
pose any gentleman will dispute it), the eapediency of retaining 
the declaration is a more difficult question. It is said not to be 
necessary, because in this Commonwealth ninety-nine out of 


a 


6 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


every hundred of the inhabitants profess to believe in the Chris- 
tian religion. It is sufficiently certain, therefore, that persons of 
this description, and none others, will ordinarily be chosen to 
places of public trust. ‘There is as much security, it is said, on 
this subject, as the necessity of the case requires. And as there 
is a sort of opprobrium incident to this qualification, — a mark- 
ing out, for observation and censorious remark, of a single indi- 
vidual, or a very few individuals, who may not be able to make 
the declaration, — it is an act, if not of injustice, yet of unkind- 
ness, and of unnecessary rigor, to call on such individuals to 
make the declaration, and to exclude them from office if they 
refuse to do so. 

There is also another class of objections, which have been 
stated. It has been said, that there are many very devout and 
serious persons, persons who esteem the Christian religion to be 
above all price, to whom, nevertheless, the terms of this declara- 
tion seem somewhat too strong and intense. ‘They seem, to 
these persons, to require the declaration of that faith which is 
deemed essential to personal salvation; and therefore not at all 
fit to be adopted as a declaration of belief in Christianity, in a 
more popular and general sense. It certainly appears to me, 
that this is a mistaken interpretation of the terms; that they 
imply only a general assent to the truth of the Christian revela- 
tion, and, at most, to the supernatural occurrences which estab- 
lish its authenticity. ‘There may, however, and there appears to 
be, conscience in this objection; and all conscience ought to be 
respected. Iwas not aware, before I attended the discussions 
in the committee, of the extent to which this objection pre- 
vailed. 

There is one other consideration to which I will allude, al- 
though it was not urged in committee. It is this. This qualifi- 
cation is made applicable only to the executive and the members 
of the legislature. It would not be easy, perhaps, to say why it 
should not be extended to the judiciary, if it were thought neces- 
sary for any office. ‘There can be no office in which the sense 
of religious responsibility is more necessary than in that of a 
judge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on 
the lives, liberty, and property of every man. ‘There may be 
among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There 
may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is 


QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE. 7 


in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society; and 
if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed, and seeks 
their repeal. ‘The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts di- 
rectly on individuals. The injured may suffer, without sympa- 
thy or the hope of redress. ‘The last hope of the innocent, under 
accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If 
this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy, on this side the bar 
of Heaven. Of all places, therefore, there is none which so 
imperatively demands that he who occupies it should be under 
the fear of God, and above all other fear, as the situation of a 
judge. For these reasons, perhaps, it might be thought that the 
constitution has not gone far enough, if the provisions already 
in it were deemed necessary to the public security. 


I believe I have stated the substance of the reasons which 
appeared to have weight with the committee. F’or my own 
part, finding this declaration in the constitution, and hearing of 
no practical evil resulting from it, I shoyld have been willing to 
retain it, tnless considerable objection had been expressed to it. 
If others were satisfied with it, I should be. Ido not consider 
it, however, essential to retain it, as there is another part of the 
constitution which recognizes, in the fullest manner, the benefits 
which civil society derives from those Christian institutions 
which cherish piety, morality, and religion. I am clearly of 
opinion, that we should not strike out of the constitution all 
recognition of the Christian religion. I am desirous, in so sol- 
emn a transaction as the establishment of a constitution, that 
we should keep in it an expression of our respect and attachment 
to Christianity ;— not, indeed, to any of its peculiar forms, but 
to its general principles. 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 


I xnow not, Sir, whether it be probable that any opinions or 
votes of mine are ever likely to be of more permanent impor- 
tance, than those which I may give in the discharge of my 
duties in this body. And of the questions which may arise 
here, I anticipate no one of greater consequence than the pres- 
ent. I ask leave, therefore, to submit a few remarks to the con- 
sideration of the commiitee. 

The subject before us, is the manner of constituting the legis- 
lative department of government. We have already decided, 
that the legislative power shall exist as it has heretofore existed, 
in two separate and distinct branches, a Senate and a House of 
Representatives. We propose also, at least I have heard no 
intimation of a contrary opinion, that these branches shall, in 
form, possess a negative on each other. I presume I may also 
take it for granted, that the members of both these houses are 
to be chosen annually. The immediate question now under 
discussion is, In what manner shall the senators be elected? 
They are to be chosen in districts; but shall they be chosen in 
proportion to the number of inhabitants in each district, or in 
proportion to the taxable property of each district, or, in other 
words, in proportion to the part which each district bears in the 
public burdens of the State. The latter is the existing provision 
of the constitution; and to this I give my support. 

The resolution of the honorable member from Roxbury + 
proposes to divide the State into certain legislative districts, and 


* Remarks made on the 15th of December, 1820, in the Convention, upon the 
Resolution to divide the Commonwealth into Districts for the Choice of Senators 
according to Population. 

+ General Dearborn. 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 9 


to choose a given number of senators, and a given number of 
representatives, in each district, in proportion to population. 
This I understand. It is a simple and plain system. ‘The hon- 
orable member from Pittsfield* and the honorable member from 
Worcester? support the first part of this proposition, that is to 
say, that part which provides for the choice of senators accord- 
ing to population, without explaining entirely their views as te 
the latter part, relative to the choice of representatives. They 
insist that the questions are distinct, and capable of a separate 
consideration and decision. I confess myself, Sir, unable to 
view the subject in that light. It seems to me, there is an 
essential propriety in considering the questions together; and 
in forming our opinions of them, as parts respectively of one 
legislative system. ‘The legislature is one great machine of goy- 
ernment, not two machines. ‘The two houses are its parts, and 
its utility will, as it seems to me, depend not merely on the 
materials of these parts, or their separate construction, but on 
their accommodation, also, and adaptation to each other. Their 
balanced and regulated movement, when united, is that which 
is expected to insure safety to the State; and who can give any 
opinion on this, without first seeing the construction of both, 
and considering how they are formed and arranged with respect 
to their mutual relation? I cannot imagine, therefore, how the 
member from Worcester should think it uncandid to inquire of 
him, since he supports this mode of choosing senators, what 
mode he proposes for the choice of representatives. 

Tt has been said that the constitution, as it now stands, gives 
more than an equal and proper number of senators to the county 
of Suffolk. I hope I may be thought to contend for the general 
principle, without being influenced by any regard to its local ap- 
plication. I do not inquire whether the senators whom this 
principle brings into the government will come from the county 
of Suffolk, from the valley of the Housatonic, or the extremity 
of Cape Cod. I wish to look only to the principle; and as I 
believe that to be sound and salutary, I shall give my vote in 
favor of maintaining it. 

In my opinion, Sir, there are two questions before the com- 
mittee. ‘The first is, Shall the legislative department be con- 


* Mr. Childs. + Mr. Lincoln. 


10 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


structed with any other check than such as arises simply from 
dividing the members of this department into two houses? The 
second is, If such other and further check ought to exist, in what 
manner shall it be created ? 

If the two houses are to be chosen in the manner proposed by 
the resolutions of the member from Roxbury, there is obviously 
no other check or control than a division into separate cham- 
bers. ‘The members of both houses are to be chosen at the 
same time, by the same electors, in the same districts, and for 
the same term of office. They will of course all be actuated by 
the same feelings and interests. Whatever motives may at the 
moment exist to elect particular members of one house, will op- 
erate equally on the choice of the members of the other. ‘There 
is so little of real utility in this mode, that, if nothing more be 
done, it would be more expedient to choose all the members of 
the legislature, without distinction, simply as members of the 
legislature, and to make the division into two houses, either by 
lot or otherwise, after these members thus chosen should have 
come up to the capital. 

I understand the reason of checks and balances, in the Jegis- 
lative power, to arise from the truth, that, in representative gov- 
ernments, that department is the leading and predominating 
power; and if its will may be at any time suddenly and hastily 
expressed, there is great danger that it may overthrow all other 
powers. Legislative bodies naturally feel strong, because they 
are numerous, and because they consider themselves as the im- 
mediate representatives of the people. They depend on pub- 
lic opinion to sustain their measures, and they undoubtedly pos- 
sess great means of influencing public opinion. With all the 
guards which can be raised by constitutional provisions, we are 
not likely to be too well secured against cases of improper, or 
hasty, or intemperate legislation. It may be observed, also, 
that the executive power, so uniformly the object of jealousy to 
republics, has in the States of this Union been deprived of the 
greater part both of its importance and its splendor, by the es- 
tablishment of the general government. While the States pos- 
sessed the power of making war and peace, and maintained 
military forces by their own authority, the power of the State 
executives was very considerable and respectable. It might 
then even be an object, in some cases, of a just and warranta- 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 1L 


ble jealousy. But a great change has been wrought. The care 
of foreign relations, the maintenance of armies and navies, and 
their command and control, have devolved on another govern- 
ment. Even the power of appointment, so exclusively, one 
would think, an executive power, is, in very many of the States, 
held or controlled by the legislature; that department either 
making the principal appointments itself, or else surrounding 
the chief executive magistrate with a council of its own elec- 
tion, possessing a negative upon his nominations. 

Nor has it been found easy, nor in all cases possible, to pre- 
serve the judicial department from the progress of legislative 
encroachment. Indeed, in some of the States, all judges are ap- 
pointed by the legislature ; in others, although appointed by the 
executive, they are removable at the pleasure of the legislature. 
In all, the provision for their maintenance is necessarily to be 
made by the legislature. As if Montesquieu had never demon- 
strated the necessity of separating the departments of govern- 
ments; as if Mr. Adams had not done the same thing, with 
equal ability, and more clearness, in his Defence of the Ameri- 
ean Constitutions; as if the sentiments of Mr. Hamilton and 
Mr. Madison were already forgotten; we see, all around us, a 
tendency to extend the legislative power over the proper sphere 
of the other departments. And as the legislature, from the very 
nature of things, is the most powerful department, it becomes 
necessary to provide, in the mode of forming it, some check 
which shall insure deliberation and caution in its measures. If 
all legislative power rested in one house, it is very problematical 
whether any proper independence could be given, either to the 
executive or the judiciary. HExperience does not speak encour- 
agingly on that point. If we look through the several constitu- 
tions of the States, we shall perceive that generally the depart- 
ments are most distinct and independent where the legislature 
is composed of two houses, with equal authority, and mutual 
checks. If all legislative power be in one popular body, all other 
power, sooner or later, will be there also. 

I wish, now, Sir, to correct a most important mistake in the 
manner in which this question has been stated. It has been 
said, that we propose to give to property, merely as such, a con- 
trol over the people, numerically considered. But this I take 
not to be at all the true nature of the proposition. ‘The Senate 


1 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


is not to be a check on the people, but on the House of Repre- 
sentatives. It is the case of an authority, given to one agent, to 
check or control the acts of another. ‘The people, having con- 
ferred on the House of Representatives powers which are great, 
and, from their nature, liable to abuse, require, for their own se- 
curity, another house, which shall possess an effectual negative 
on the first. This does not limit the power of the people; but 
only the authority of their agents. It is not a restraint on their 
rights, but a restraint on that power which they have delegated. 
It limits the authority of agents in making laws to bind their 
principals. And if it be wise to give one agent the power of 
checking or controlling another, it is equally wise, most mani- 
festly, that there should be some difference of character, senti- 
ment, feeling, or origin in that agent who is to possess this 
control. Otherwise, it is not at all probable that the control 
will ever be exercised. ‘To require the consent of two agents 
to the validity of an act, and yet to appoint agents so similar, 
in all respects, as to create a moral certainty that what one does 
the other will do also, would be inconsistent, and nugatory. 
There can be no effectual control, without some difference of 
origin, or character, or interest, or feeling, or sentiment. And 
the great question in this country has been, where to find, or 
how to create, this difference, in governments entirely elective 
and popular. 

Various modes have been attempted in various States. In 
some, a difference of qualification has been required in the per- 
sons to be elected. This obviously produces little or no effect. 
All property qualification, even the highest, is so low, as to pro- 
duce no exclusion, to any extent, in any of the States. A dif- 
ference of age in the persons elected is sometimes required; 
but this is found to be equally unimportant. Neither has it hap- 
pened, that any consideration of the relative rank of the mem- 
bers of the two houses has had much effect on the character of 
their constituent members. Both in the State governments, and 
in the United States government, we daily see persons elected 
into the House of Representatives who have been members of 
the Senate. Public opinion does not attach so much weight 
and importance to the distinction, as to lead individuals greatly 
to regard it. In some of the States, a different sort of qualifi- 
cation in the electors is required for the two houses; and this is 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 13 


probably the most proper and efficient check. But such has not 
been the provision in this Commonwealth, and there are strong 
objections to introducing it. In other cases, again, there is a 
double election for senators ; electors being first chosen, who elect 
senators. Such is the case in Maryland, where the senators are 
elected for five years, by electors appointed in equal numbers by 
the counties ; a mode of election not unlike that of choosing rep- 
resentatives in the British Parliament for the boroughs of Scot- 
land. In this State, the qualification of the voters is the same 
for the two houses, and there is no essential difference in that of 
the persons chosen. But, in apportioning the Senate to the dif- 
ferent districts of the State, the present constitution assigns to 
each district a number proportioned to its public taxes. Whether 
this be the best mode of producing a difference in the construc- 
tion of the two houses, is not now the question; but the ques- 
tion is, whether this be better than no mode. 

The gentleman from Roxbury called for authority on this sub- 
ject. He asked, what writer of reputation had approved the 
principle for which we contend. I should hope, Sir, that, even 
if this call could not be answered, it would not necessarily fol- 
low that the principle should be expunged. Governments are 
instituted for practical benefit, not for subjects of speculative 
reasoning merely. ‘lhe best authority for the support of a 
particular principle or provision in government is experience; 
and of all experience, our own, if it have been long enough to 
give the principle a fair trial, should be most decisive. This 
provision has existed for forty years, and while so many gentle- 
men contend that it is wrong in theory, no one has shown that 
it has been either injurious or inconvenient in practice. No one 
pretends that it has caused a bad law to be enacted, or a good 
one to be rejected. ‘T’o call on us, then, to strike out this pro- 
vision, because we should be able to find no authority for it in 
any book on government, would seem to be like requiring @ 
mechanic to abandon the use of an implement, which had 
always answered all the purposes designed by it, because he 
could find no model of it in the patent-office. 

But, Sir, I take the principle to be well established, by wnters 
of the greatest authority. In the first place, those who have 
treated of natural law have maintained, as a principle of that 
law, that, as far as the object of society is the protection of 

VOL. Ill. 2 


14 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


something in which the members possess unequal shares, it is 
just that the weight of each person in the common councils 
should bear a relation and proportion to his interest. Such is 
the sentiment of Grotius, and he refers, in support of it, to sey- 
eral institutions among the ancient states. 

Those authors who have written more particularly on the sub- 
ject of political institutions have, many of them, maintained 
similar sentiments. Not, indeed, that every man’s power should 
be in exact proportion to his property, but that, in a general 
sense, and in a general form, property, as such, should have its 
weight and influence in political arrangement. Montesquieu 
speaks with approbation of the early Roman regulation, made 
by Servius Tullius, by which: the people were distributed into 
classes, according to their property, and the public burdens ap- 
portioned to each individual according to the degree of power 
which he possessed in the government. By this regulation, 
he observes, some bore with the greatness of their tax because 
of their proportionable participation in power and credit; others 
consoled themselves for the smallness of their power and credit 
by the smallness of their tax. One of the most ingenious of 
political writers is Mr. Harrington, an author not now read so 
much as he deserves. It is his leading object, in his Oceana, to 
prove, that power naturally and necessarily follows property. 
He maintains that a government founded on property is legiti- 
mately founded; and that a government founded on the disre- 
gard of property is founded in injustice, and can only be main- 
tained by military force. “If one man,” says he, “be sole land- 
lord, like the Grand Seignior, his empire is absolute. If a few 
possess the land, this makes the Gothic or’ feudal constitution. 
If the whole people be landlords, then is it a commonwealth.” 
“Tt is strange,” says an ingenious person in the last century, 
“that Harrington should be the first man to find out so evi- 
dent and demonstrable a truth as that of property being the 
true basis and measure of power.”* In truth, he was not the 
first. ‘The idea is as old as political science itself. It may be 
found in Aristotle, Lord Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh, and other 
writers. Harrington seems, however, to be the first writer who 
has illustrated and expanded the principle, and given to it the 


* Spence’s Anecdotes of Books and Men, p. 75. 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 15 


effect and prominence which justly belong to it. To this senti- 
ment, Sir, | entirely agree. It seems.to me to be plain, that, in 
the absence of military force, political power naturally and 
necessarily goes into the hands which hold the property. In my 
judgment, therefore, a republican form of government rests, not 
more on political constitutions, than on those laws which regu- 
late the descent and transmission of property. 

If the nature of our institutions be to found government on 
property, and that it should look to those who hold property for 
its protection, it is entirely just that property should have its due 
weight and consideration in political arrangements. Life and 
personal liberty are no doubt to be protected by law; but prop- 
erty is also to be protected by law, and is the fund out of which 
the means for protecting life and liberty are usually furnished. 
We have no experience that teaches us that any other rights are 
safe where property is not safe. Confiscation and plunder are 
generally, in revolutionary commotions, not far before banish- 
ment, imprisonment, and death. It would be monstrous to give 
even the name of government to any association in which the 
rights of property should not be completely secured. ‘The disas- 
trous revolutions which the world has witnessed, those political 
thunder-storms and earthquakes which have shaken the pillars 
of society to their very deepest foundations, have been revolu- 
tions against property. Since the honorable member from 
Quincy* has alluded on this occasion to the history of the an- 
cient states, it would be presumption in me to dwell upon it. 
It may be truly said, however, I think, that Rome herself is 
an example of the mischievous influence of the popular power 
when disconnected with property and in a corrupt age. It is 
true the arm of Cesar prostrated her liberty; but Caesar found 
his support within her very walls. Those who were profligate 
and necessitous, and factious and desperate, and capable, there- 
fore, of being influenced by bribes and largesses, which were 
distributed with the utmost prodigality, outnumbered and out- 
voted, in the tribes and centuries, the substantial, sober, pru- 
dent, and faithful citizens. Property was in the hands of one 
description of men, and power in those of another; and the 
balance of the constitution was destroyed. Let it never be 


* President Adams. 


16 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


forgotten that it was the popular magistrates, elevated to office 
where the bad outnumbered the good,— where those who had 
not a stake in the commonwealth, by clamor and noise and num- 
bers, drowned the voice of those who had,—that laid the neck 
of Rome at the feet of her conqueror. When Cesar, manifest- 
ing a disposition to march his army against the capital, ap- 
proached that little stream which has become so memorable 
from its association with his history, a decree was proposed in 
the Senate declaring him a public enemy if he did not dis- 
band his troops. ‘To this decree the popular tribunes, the 
sworn protectors of the people, interposed their negative; and 
thus opened the high road to Rome, and the gates of the city 
herself, to the bopratent of her conqueror. 

The English Revolution of 1688 was a revolution in favor of 
property, as well as.of other rights. It was brought about by 
the men of property for their security; and our own immortal 
Revolution was undertaken, not to shake or plunder property, 
but to protect it. The acts of which the country complained 
were such as violated rights of property. An immense majority 
of all those who had an interest in the soil were in favor of the 
Revolution; and they carried it through, looking to its results 
for the security of their possessions. It was the property of the 
frugal yeomanry of New England, hard earned, but freely given, 
that enabled her to act her proper part and perform her full duty 
in achieving the independence of the country. 

I would not be thought, Mr. Chairman, to be among those 
who underrate the value of military service. My heart beats, I 
trust, as responsive as any one’s, to a soldier’s claim for honor 
and renown. It has ever been my opinion, however, that while 
celebrating the military achievements of our countrymen in the 
Revolutionary contest, we have not always done equal justice to 
the merits and the sufferings of those who sustained, on their 
property, and on their means of subsistence, the great burden of 
the war. Any one, who has had occasion to be acquainted with 
the records of the New England towns, knows well how to esti- 
mate those merits and those sufferings. Nobler records of patri- 
otism exist nowhere. Nowhere can there be found higher proofs 
of a spirit that was ready to hazard all, to pledge all, to sacrifice 
all, in the cause of the country. Instances were not infrequent, 
in which small freeholders parted with their last hoof, and the 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 17 


last measure of corn from their granaries, to supply provisions for 
the troops, and hire service for the ranks. The voice of Otis 
and of Adams in Faneuil Hall found its full and true echo in the 
little councils of the interior towns; and if within the Continen- 
tal Congress patriotism shone more conspicuously, it did not 
there exist more truly, nor burn more fervently ; it did not render 
the day more anxious, or the night more sleepless ; it sent up no 
more ardent prayer to God, for succor; and it put forth in no 
greater degree the fulness of its effort, and the energy of its 
whole soul and spirit, in the common cause, than it did in the 
small assemblies of the towns. I cannot, therefore, Sir, agree 
that it is in favor of society, or in favor of the people, to con- 
stitute government with an entire disregard to those who bear 
the public burdens in times of great exigency. ‘This question 
has been argued, as if it were proposed only to give an advan- 
tage to a few rich men. Ido not so understand it. I consider 
it as giving property, generally, a representation in the Senate, 
both because it is just that it should have such representation, 
and because it is a convenient mode of providing that check 
which the constitution of the legislature requires. I do not 
say that such check might not be found in some other pro- 
vision; but this is the provision already established, and it is, 
in my opinion, a just and proper one. 

1 will beg leave to ask, Sir, whether property may not be said 
to deserve this portion of respect and power in the govern- 
ment? It pays, at this moment, I think, five sixths of all the 
public taxes; one sixth only being raised on persons. Not 
only, Sir, do these taxes support those burdens which all gov- 
ernments require, but we have, in New England, from early 
times held property to be subject to another great public use; 
I mean the support of schools. Sir, property, and the power 
which the law exercises over it for the purpose of instruction, 
are the basis of the system. It is entitled to the respect and 
protection of government, because, in a very vital respect, it 
aids and sustains government. The honorable member from 
Worcester, in contending for the admission of the mere popu- 
lar principle in all branches of the government, told us, that 
our system rested on the intelligence of the community. He 
told us truly. But allow me, Sir, to ask the honorable gen- 
tleman, what, but property, supplies the means of that intelli- 

* 


18 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


gence? What living fountain feeds this ever-flowing, ever- 
refreshing, ever-fertilizing stream of public instruction and gen- 
eral intelligence? If we take away from the towns the power 
of assessing taxes on property, will the school-houses remain 
open? If we deny to the poor the benefit which they now 
derive from the property of the rich, will their children remain on 
their forms, or will they not, rather, be in the streets, in idleness 
and in vice? 

I might ask again, Sir, how is it with religious instruction ? 
Do not the towns and parishes raise money by vote of the ma- 
jority, assessed on property, for the maintenance of religious 
worship? Are not the poor as well as the rich benefited by the 
means of attending on public worship, and do they not equally 
with the rich possess a voice and vote in the choice of the 
minister, and in all other parish concerns? Does any man, Sir, 
wish to try the experiment of striking out of the constitution 
the regard which it has hitherto maintained for property, and of 
foregoing also the extraordinary benefit which society among us 
for near two centuries has derived from laying the burden of re- 
ligious and literary instruction of all classes upon property? 
Does any man wish to see those only worshipping God who are 
able to build churches and maintain ministers for themselves, 
and those children only educated whose parents possess the 
means of educating them? .Sir, it is as unwise as it is unjust 
to make property an object of jealousy. Instead of being, in 
any just sense, a popular course, such a course would be most 
injurious and destructive to the best interests of the. people. 
The nature of our laws sufliciently secures us against any dan- 
gerous accumulations; and, used and diffused as we have it, the 
whole operation of property is in the highest degree useful, both 
to the rich and to the poor. I rejoice, Sir, that every man in this 
community may call all property his own, so far as he has oc- 
casion for it, to furnish for himself and his children the blessings 
of religious instruction and the elements of knowledge. ‘This 
heavenly and this earthly light he is entitled to by the funda- 
mental laws. It is every poor man’s undoubted birthright, it is 
ihe great blessing which this constitution has secured to him, it 
is his solace in life, and it may well be his consolation in death, 
that his country stands pledged, by the faith which it has plight- 
ed to all its citizens, to protect his children from ignorance, bar- 
barism, and vice. 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 19 


I will now proceed to ask, Sir, whether we have not seen, and 
whether we do not at this moment see, the advantage and bene- 
fit of giving security to property, by this and all other reason- 
able and just provisions. _ The constitution has stood on its 
present basis forty years. Let me ask, What State has been 
more distinguished for wise and wholesome legislation? I 
speak, Sir, without the partiality of a native, and also without 
intending the compliment of a stranger; and I ask, What exam- 
ple have we had of better legislation? No violent measures af- 
fecting property have been attempted. Stop laws, suspension 
laws, tender laws, all the tribe of these arbitrary and tyrannical 
interferences between creditor and debtor, which, wheresoever 
practised, generally end in the ruin of both, are strangers to our 
statute-book. An upright and intelligent judiciary has come in 
aid of wholesome legislation; and general security for public 
and private rights has been the result. Ido not say that this is 
peculiar, [ do not say that others have not done as well. It is 
enough that, in these respects, we shall be satisfied that we are 
not behind our neighbors. No doubt, Sir, there are benefits 
of every kind, and of great value, in an organization of govy- 
ernment, both in legislative and judicial administration, which 
well secures the rights of property; and we should find it so, by 
unfortunate experience, should that character be lost. There 
are millions of personal property now in this Commonwealth 
which are easily transferable, and would be instantly transferred 
elsewhere, if any doubt existed of its entire security. I do not 
know how much of this stability of government, and of the 
general respect for it, may be fairly imputed to this particular 
mode of organizing the Senate. It has, no doubt, had some 
effect. It indicates a respect for the rights of property, and may 
have operated on opinion as well as upon measures. Now to 
strike out and obliterate it, as it seems to me, would be ina 
high degree unwise and improper. 

As to the right of apportioning senators upon this principle, I 
do not understand how there can be a question about it. All 
government is a modification of general principles and general 
truths, with a view to practical utility. Personal liberty, for in- 
stance, is a clear right, and is to be provided for; but it is not a 
clearer right than the right of property, though it may be more 
important. It is, therefore, entitled to protection. But property 


20 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


is also to be protected; and when it is remembered how great a 
portion of the people of this State possess property, I cannot 
understand how its protection or its influence is hostile to their 
rights and privileges. For these reasons, Sir, I am in favor of 
maintaining that check, in the constitution of the legislature, 
which has so long existed there. 

I understand the gentleman from Worcester* to be in favor 
of a check, but it seems to me he would place it in the wrong 
house. Besides, the sort of check he proposes appears to me 
to be of a novel nature, as a balance in government. He _ pro- 
poses to choose the senators according to the number of inhab- 
itants; and to choose representatives, not according to that 
number, but in proportions greatly unequal in the town corpo- 
rations. It has been stated to result from computation, and I do 
not understand it to be denied, that, on his system, a majority 
of the representatives will be chosen by towns not containing 
one third part of the whole population of the State. I would 
beg to ask, Sir, on what principle this can stand; especially in 
the judgment of those who regard population as the only just 
basis of representation. But, Sir, I have a preliminary objec- 
tion to this system; which is, that it reverses all our common 
notions, and constitutes the popular house upon anti-popular 
principles. We are to have a popular Senate of thirty-six mem- 
bers, and we are to place the check of the system in a House of 
Representatives of two hundred and fifty members! All money 
bills are to originate in the House, yet the House is not to be 
the popular branch. It is to exceed the Senate, seven or eight 
to one, in point of numbers, yet the Senate is to be chosen on | 
the popular principle, and the House on some other principle. 

It is necessary here, Sir, to consider the manner of electing 
representatives in this Commonwealth, as heretofore practised, 
the necessity which exists of reducing the present number of 
representatives, and the propositions which have been submitted 
for that purpose. Representation by towns or townships (as 
they might have been originally more properly called) is peculiar 
to New England. It has existed, however, since the first setitle- 
ment of the country. These local districts are so small, and of 
such unequal population, that if every town is to have one rep- 


* Mr. Lincoln. 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 91 


resentative, and larger towns as many more as their population, 
compared with the smallest town, would numerically entitle 
them to,a very numerous body must be the consequence, in any 
large State. Five hundred members, I understand, may now be 
constitutionally elected to the House of Representatives; the 
very statement of which number shows the necessity of reduc- 
tion. I agree, Sir, that this is a very difficult subject. Here are 
three hundred towns all possessing the right of representation ; 
and representation by towns is an ancient habit of the people. 
For one, | am disposed to preserve this mode, so far as may be 
practicable. ‘There is always an advantage in making the revis- 
ions of the fundamental law, which circumstances may render 
necessary, in a manner which does no violence to ancient habits 
and established rules. I prefer, therefore, a representation by 
towns, even though it should necessarily be somewhat numer- 
ous, to a division of the State into new districts, the parts of 
which might have little natural connection or little actual inter- 
course with one another. But I ground my opinion in this re- 
spect on fitness and expediency, and the sentiments of the 
people; not on absolute right. ‘The town corporations, simply 
as such, cannot be said to have any right to representation ; ex- 
cept so far as the constitution creates such right. And this I 
apprehend to be the fallacy of the argument of the honorable 
member from Worcester. He contends, that the smallest town 
has a right to its representative. ‘This is true; but the largest 
town (Boston) has a right also to fifty. These rights are pre- 
cisely equal. ‘They stand on the same ground, that is, on the 
provisions of the existing constitution. ‘The honorable member 
thinks it quite just to reduce the right of the large town from 
fifty to ten, and yet that there is no power to affect the right of 
the small town, either by uniting it with another small town 
for the choice of a representative, or otherwise. I do not assent 
to that opinion. If it be right to take away half or three fourths 
of the representation of the large towns, it cannot be right to 
leave that of the small towns undiminished. ‘The report of the 
committee proposes that these small towns shall elect a member 
eyery other year, half of them sending one year, and half the 
next; or else that two small towns shall unite and send one 
member every year. ‘I'here is something apparently irregular 

nd anomalous in sending a member every other year; yet, per- 


22 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


haps, it is no great departure from former habits; because these 
small towns, being by the present constitution compelled to pay 
their own members, have not ordinarily sent them oftener, on 
the average, than once in two years. 

The honorable member from Worcester founds his argument 
on the right of town corporations, as such, to be represented in 
the legislature. If he only mean that right which the constitu- 
tion at present secures, his observation is true, while the consti- 
tution remains unaltered. But if he intend to say that such 
right exists prior to the constitution, and independent of it, I 
ask, Whence is it derived? Representation of the people has 
heretofore been by towns, because such a mode has been thought 
convenient. Still it has been the representation of the people. 
It is no corporate right, to partake in the sovereign power and 
form part of the legislature. To establish this right, as a cor- 
porate right, the gentleman has enumerated the duties of the 
town corporation; such as the maintenance of public worship, 
public schools, and public highways; and insists that the per- 
formance of these duties gives the town a right to a representa- 
tive in the legislature. But I would ask, Sir, what possible 
ground there is for this argument. ‘The burden of these duties 
falls not on any corporate funds belonging to the towns, but on 
the people, under assessments made on them individually, in 
their town meetings. As distinct from their individual inhabit- 
ants, the towns have no interest in these affairs. ‘hese duties 
are imposed by general laws; they are to be performed by the 
people, and if the people are represented in the making of these 
laws, the object is answered, whether they should be represented 
in one mode or another. 

But, farther, Sir, are these municipal duties rendered to the 
State, or are they not rather performed by the people of the 
towns for their own benefit? The general treasury derives no 
supplies from all these contributions. If the towns maintain 
religious instruction, it is for the benefit of their own inhabitants ; 
if they support schools, it is for the education of the children of 
their inhabitants; and if they maintain roads and bridges, it is 
also for their own convenience. And therefore, Sir, although I 
repeat that for reasons of expediency I am in favor of maintain- 
ing town representation, as far as it can be done with a proper 
regard to equality of representation, I entirely disagree to the 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 93 


notion, that every town has a right, which an alteration of the 
constitution cannot divest, if the general good require such alter- 
ation, to have a representative in the legislature. 

The honorable member has declared that we are about to 
disfranchise corporations, and destroy chartered rights. He pro- 
nounces this system of representation an outrage, and declares 
that we are forging chains and fetters for the people of Massa- 
chusetts. “ Chains and fetters!” This convention of delegates, 
chosen by the people within this month, and going back to the 
people, divested of all power, within another month, yet occupy- 
ing their span of time here, in forging chains and fetters for 
themselves and their constituents! “ Chains and fetters!” <A 
popular assembly of four hundred men combining to fabricate 
these manacles for the people, and nobody but the honora- 
ble member from Worcester with sagacity enough to detect 
the horrible conspiracy, or honesty enough to disclose it! 
“ Chains and fetters!” An assembly most variously composed, 
—men of all professions and all parties, of different ages, hab- 
its, and associations,— all freely and recently chosen by their 
towns and districts; yet this assembly, in one short month, con- 
triving to fetter and enslave itself and its constituents! Sir, 
there are some things too extravagant for the ornament and 
decoration of oratory; some things too excessive, even for the 
fictions of poetry; and I am persuaded that a little reflection 
would satisfy the honorable member, that, when he speaks of 
this assembly as committing outrages on the rights of the peo- 
ple, and as forging chains and fetters for their subjugation, he 
does as great injustice to his own character as a correct and 
manly debater, as he does to the motives and the intelligence of 
this body. 

I do not doubt, Sir, that some inequality exists, in the mode of 
representatives proposed by the committee. A precise and exact 
equality is not attainable,in any mode. Look to the gentleman’s 
own proposition. By that, Essex, with twenty thousand inhab- 
iiants more than Worcester, would have twenty representatives 
less. Suffolk, which, according to numbers, would be entitled te 
twenty, would have, if i mistake not, ergnt or mime only. What- 
ever else, Sir, this proposition may be a specimen of, it is hard- 
ly a specimen of equality. As to the House of Representatives, 
my view of the subject is this. Under the present constitution, 


24 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


the towns have all a right to send representatives to the legisla- 
ture, in a certain fixed proportion to their numbers. It has been 
found that the full exercise of this right fills the House of Rep- 
resentatives with too numerous a body. What, then, is to be 
done? Why, Sir, the delegates of the towns are here assem- 
bled, to agree, mutually, on some reasonable mode of reduction. 
Now, Sir, it is not for one party to stand sternly on its right, 
and demand all the concession from another. As to right, all 
are equal. The right which Hull possesses to send one, is the 
same as the right of Boston to send fifty. Mutual concession 
and accommodation, therefore, can alone accomplish the pur- 
pose of our meeting. If Boston consents, instead of fifty, to 
send but twelve or fifteen, the small towns must consent, either 
to be united, in the choice of their representatives, with other 
small towns, or to send a representative less frequently than 
every year; or to have an option to do one or the other 
of these, hereafter, as shall be found most convenient. ‘This 
is what the report of the committee proposes, and, as far as 
we have yet learned, a great majority of the delegates from 
small towns approve the plan. I am willing, therefore, to vote 
for this part of the report of the committee; thinking it as 
just and fair a representation, and as much reduced in point 
of numbers, as can be reasonably hoped for, without giving up 
entirely the system of representation by towns. It is to be con- 
sidered also, that, according to the report of the committee, 
the pay of the members is to be out of the public treasury. 
Every body must see how this will operate on the large towns. 
Boston, for example, with its twelve or fourteen members, will 
pay for fifty. Be it so; it is incident to its property, and not at 
all an injustice, if proper weight be given to that property, and 
proper provision be made for its security. 

To recur, again, to the subject of the Senate. There is one 
remark, made by gentlemen on the other side, of which I wish 
to take notice. It is said, that, if the principle of representa- 
tion in the Senate by property be correct, it ought to be car- 
ried through; whereas, it is limited and restrained by a provis- 
1on that no district shall be entitled to more than six Senators. 
But this is a prohibition on the making of great districts, gen- 
erally; not merely a limitation of the effect of the property 
principle. It prevents great districts from being made where 


BASIS OF THE SENATE. 95 


the valuation is small, as well as where it is large. Were it not 
for this, or some similar prohibition, Worcester and Hampshire 
might have been joined, under the present constitution, and have 
sent, perhaps, ten or twelve Senators. The limitation is a gen- 
eral one, introduced for general purposes; and if in a particular 
instance it bears hard on any county, this should be regarded as 
an evil incident to a good and salutary rule, and ought to be, 
as I doubt not it will be, quietly borne. 

I forbear, Mr. Chairman, to take notice of many minor objec- 
tions to the report of the committee. ‘The defence of that report, 
especially in its details, properly belongs to other and abler 
hands. My purpose in addressing you was, simply, to consider 
the propriety of providing in one branch of the legislature a 
real check upon the other. And as I look upon that princi- 
ple to be of the highest practical importance, and as it has 
seemed to me that the doctrines contended for would go to sub- 
vert it, I hope I may be pardoned for detaining the committee 
so long. 


Cn 


VOL. Il 


INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.* 


Reerets are vain for what is past; yet I hardly know how it 
has been thought to be a regular course of proceeding to go into 
committee on this subject, before taking up the several proposi- 
tions which now await their final readings on the president’s 
table. ‘The consequence is, that this question comes on by sur- 
prise. ‘The chairman of the select committee is not present; 
many of the most distinguished members of the convention are 
personally so situated as not to be willing to take part in the 
debate, and the first law officer of the government, a member of 
the committee, happens at this moment to be in a place (the 
chair of the committee of the whole) which deprives us of the — 
benefit of his observations. Under these circumstances, I had 
hoped the committee would rise. It has, however, been deter- 
mined otherwise, and I must therefore beg their indulgence 
while I make a few observations. 

As the constitution now stands, all judges are liable to be re- 
moved from office by the governor, with the consent of the 
council, on the address of the two houses of the legislature. It 
is not made necessary that the two houses should give any rea- 
sons for their address, or that the judge should have an opportu- 
nity to be heard. I look upon this as against common right, as 
well as repugnant to the general principles of the government. 
The commission of the judge purports to be, on the face of it, 
during good behavior. He has an interest in his office. To 
give an authority to the legislature to deprive him of it, with- 
out trial or accusation, is manifestly to make the judges depend- 
ent on the legislature. 

* Remarks made on the 30th of December, 1820, in the Convention, upon a 


Resolution to make Judicial Officers removable by the Governor and Council upon 
the Address of two thirds (instead of a majority) of each Branch of the Legislature 


INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. 27 


The question is not what the legislature probably will do, but 
what they may do. If the judges, in fact, hold their offices only 
so long as the legislature see fit, then it is vain and illusory 
to say that the judges are independent men, incapable of being 
influenced by hope or by fear. The tenure of their office is not 
independent. ‘The general theory and principle of the govern- 
ment are broken in upon, by giving the legislature this power. 
The departments of government are not equal, codrdinate, and 
independent, while one is thus at the mercy of the others. What 
would be said of a proposition to authorize the governor or judges 
to remove a senator or member of the House of Representatives 
from office? And yet, the general theory of the constitution is 
to make the judges as independent as members of the legislature. 

I know not whether a greater improvement has been made in 
government than to separate the judiciary from the executive 
and legislative branches, and to provide for the decision of pri- 
vate rights in a manner wholly uninfluenced by reasons of state, 
or considerations of party or of policy. It is the glory of the 
British constitution to have led in the establishment of this most 
important principle. It did not exist in England before the 
Revolution of 1688, and its introduction has seemed to give a 
new character to the tribunals. It is not necessary to state the 
evils which had been experienced in that country from depend- 
ent and timeserving judges. In matters of mere property, in 
causes of no political or public bearing, they might perhaps be 
safely trusted; but in great questions concerning public liberty 
or the rights of the subject, they were, in too many cases, not fit 
to be trusted at all. Who would now quote Scroggs, or Saun- 
ders, or Jeffreys, on a question concerning the right of the habeas 
corpus, or the right of suffrage, or the liberty of the press, or any 
other subject closely connected with political freedom? Yet on 
all these subjects the sentiments of the English judges since the 
Revolution, of Somers, Holt, Ireby, Jekyl, and others like them, 
are, in general, favorable to civil liberty, and receive and deserve 
great attention whenever referred to. Indeed, Massachusetts 
herself knows, by her own history, what is to be expected from 
dependent judges. Her own charter was declared forfeited, 
without a hearing, in a court where such judges sat. 

When Charles the Second, and his brother after him, at- 
tempted the destruction of chartered rights, both in the kingdom 


28 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


and out of it, the mode was by judgments obtained in the 
courts. It is well known, that after the prosecution against the 
city of London was commenced, and while it was pending, the 
judges were changed; and Saunders, who had been consulted 
on the occasion, and had advised the proceeding on the part of 
the crown, was made chief justice for the very purpose of giving 
a judgment in favor of the crown; his predecessor being removed 
to make room for him. But since the Revolution of 1688, an 
entire new character in this respect has been given to English 
judicature. The judges have been made independent, and the 
benefit has been widely and deeply felt. A similar improvement 
seems to have made its way into Scotland. Before the union 
of the kingdoms, it cannot be said that there was any judicial 
independence in Scotland; and the highest names in Scottish 
jurisprudence have been charged with being under influences 
which could not, in modern times, be endured. It is even said, 
that the practice of entails did not extensively exist in Scotland 
till about the time of the reigns of the last princes of the Stuart 
race, and that it was then introduced to guard against unjust 
forfeitures. It is strange, indeed, that this should happen at so 
late a period, and that a most unnatural and artificial state of 
property should be owing to the fear of dependent judicatures. 
I might add here, that the heritable jurisdictions, the greatest 
almost of all evils connected with the administration of justice, 
were not abolished in Scotland till about the middle of the last 
century; so slowly does improvement make progress when op- 
posed by ignorance, prejudice, or interest. 

In our own country, it was for years a topic of complaint, 
before the Revolution, that justice was administered, in some of 
the Colonies, by judges dependent on the British crown. The 
Declaration of Independence itself puts forth this as a promi- 
nent grievance, among those which justified the Revolution. 
The British king, it declares, “had made judges dependent on 
his own will alone, for the tenure of their offices.” It was there- 
fore to be expected, that, in establishing their own governments, 
this important point of the independence of the judicial power 
would be regarded by the States. Some of them have made 
greater and others less provision on this subject; the more recent 
constitutions, I believe, being generally frarned with the best 
guards for judicial independence. 


INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. “9 


Those who oppose any additional security for the tenure of 
judicial office have pressed to know what evil has been experi- 
enced, what injury has arisen, from the constitution as it is. 
Perhaps none; but if evils probably may arise, the question 
is, whether the subject be not so important as to render it pru- 
dent to guard against that evil. If evil do arise, we may be 
sure it will be a great evil; if this power should happen to be 
abused, the consequences would be most mischievous. It is 
not a sufficient answer to say that we have as yet felt no in- 
convenience. We are bound to look to probable future events. 
We have, too, the experience of other States. Connecticut, hav 
ing had judges appointed annually, from the time of Charles 
the Second, in the recent alteration of her constitution has pro- 
vided, that hereafter they shall hold their office during good 
behavior, subject to removal on the address of two thirds of each 
house of the legislature. In Pennsylvania, the judges may be 
removed, “for any reasonable cause,’ on the address of two 
thirds of the two houses. In some of the States, three fourths 
of each house are required. ‘The new constitution of Maine has 
a provision, with which I should be content; which is, that no 
judge shall be liable to be removed by the legislature till the 
matter of his accusation has been made known to him, and he 
has had an opportunity of being heard in his defence. This 
seems no more than common justice; and yet it is much greater 
than any security which at present exists in the constitution of 
this Commonwealth. It will be found, if I mistake not, that 
there are not more than two or three, out of all the States, which 
have left the tenure of judicial office at the entire pleasure of the 
legislature. 

It cannot be denied, that one great object of written constitu- 
tions is to keep the departments of government as distinct as 
possible; and for this purpose to impose restraints designed to 
have that effect. And it is equally true, that there is no depart- 
ment on which it is more necessary to impose restraints than 
the legislature. The tendency of things is almost always to 
augment the power of that department, in its relation to the 
judiciary. The judiciary is composed of few persons, and those 
not such as mix habitually in the pursuits and objects which 
most engage public men. They are not, or never should be, 
political men. They have often unpleasant duties to perform 

as 


30 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


and their conduct is often liable to be canvassed and censured, 
where their reasons for it are not known, or cannot be under- 
stood. The legislature holds the public purse. It fixes the com- 
pensation of all other departments; it applies, as well as raises, 
all revenue. It is a numerous body, and necessarily carries along 
with it a great force of public opinion. Its members are public 
men, in constant contact with one another, and with their con- 
stituents. It would seem to be plain enough, that, without con- 
stitutional provisions which should be fixed and certain, such a 
department, in case of excitement, would be able to encroach 
on the judiciary. Therefore is it, that a security of judicial 
independence becomes necessary; and the question is, whether 
that independence be at present sufficiently secured. 

The constitution being the supreme law, it follows of course, 
that every act of the legislature, contrary to that law, must be 
void. But who shall decide this question? Shall the legislature 
itself decide it? If so, then the constitution ceases to be a legal, 
and becomes only a moral restraint on the legislature. If they, 
and they only, are to judge whether their acts be conformable to 
the constitution, then the constitution is admonitory or advisory 
only; not legally binding; because, if the construction of it rest 
wholly with them, their discretion, in particular cases, may be in 
favor of very erroneous and dangerous constructions. Hence 
the courts of law, necessarily, when the case arises, must decide 
upon the validity of particular acts. These cases are rare, at 
least in this Commonwealth; but they would probably be less 
so, if the character of the judiciary were less respectable than 
it is. 

It is the theory and plan of the constitution to restrain the 
legislature, as well as other departments, and to subject their 
acts to judicial decision, whenever it appears that such acts 
infringe constitutional limits. Without this check, no certain 
limitation could exist on the exercise of legislative power. The 
constitution, for example, declares, that the legislature shall not 
suspend the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, except under 
certain limitations. If a law should happen to be passed re- 
straining personal liberty, and an individual, feeling oppressed 
by it, should apply for his habeas corpus, must not the judges 
decide what is the benefit of habeas corpus intended by the 
constitution, what it is to suspend it, and whether the acts of 


INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. dl 


the legislature do, in the given case, conform to the constitu- 
tion? All these questions would of course arise. ‘The judge is 
bound by his oath to decide according to law. The constitution 
is the supreme law. Any act of the legislature, therefore, incon- 
sistent with that supreme law, must yield to it; and any judge, 
seeing this inconsistency, and yet giving effect to the law, 
would violate both his duty and his oath. But it is evident that 
this power, to be useful, must be lodged in independent hands. 
If the legislature may remove judges at pleasure, assigning no 
eause for such removal, of course it is not to be expected that. 
they would often find decisions against the constitutionality of 
their own acts. If the legislature should, unhappily, be in a 
temper to do a violent thing, it would probably take care to see 
that the bench of justice was so constituted as to agree with it 
in opinion. 

It is unpleasant to allude to other States for negative exam- 
ples; yet, if any one were inclined to the inquiry, it might be 
found that cases had happened in which laws, known to be at 
best very questionable as to their consistency with the constitu- 
tion, had been passed; and at the same session, effectual meas- 
ures taken, under the power of removal by address, to create a 
new bench. Such a coincidence might be accidental; but the 
frequent happening of such accidents would destroy the balance 
of a free government. The history of all the States, I believe, 
shows the necessity of settled limits to legislative power. There 
are reasons, entirely consistent with upright and patriotic mo- 
tives, which, nevertheless, evince the danger of legislative en- 
croachments. ‘The subject is fully treated by Mr. Madison, in 
some numbers of the Federalist, which well deserve the consid- 
eration of the convention. 

There is nothing, after all, so important to individuals as the 
upright administration of justice. This comes home to every 
man ; life, liberty, reputation, property, all depend on this. No 
government does its duty to the people, which does not make 
ample and stable provision for the exercise of this part of its 
powers. Nor is it enough, that there are courts which will deal 
justly with mere private questions. We look to the judicial tri- 
bunal for protection against illegal or unconstitutional acts, 
from whatever quarter they may proceed. The courts of law, in- 
dependent judges, and enlightened juries, are citadels of popular 


32 CONSTITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 


liberty, as well as temples of private justice. The most essen- 
tial rights connected with political liberty are there canvassed, 
discussed, and maintained; and if it should at any time so hap- 
pen that these rights should be invaded, there is no remedy but 
a reliance on the courts to protect and vindicate them. There 
is danger, also, that legislative bodies will sometimes pass laws 
interfering with other private rights than those connected with 
political liberty. Individuals are too apt to apply to the legis- 
lative power to interfere with private cases or private proper- 
ty; and such applications sometimes meet with favor and sup- 
port. ‘There would be no security, if these interferences were 
not subject to some subsequent constitutional revision, where all 
parties could be heard, and justice be administered according to 
the standing laws. 

These considerations are among those which, in my opinion, 
render an independent judiciary equally essential to the preser- 
vation of private rights and public liberty. I lament the neces- 
sity of deciding this question at the present moment; and 
should hope, if such immediate decision were not demanded, 
that some modification of this report might prove acceptable to 
the committee, since, in my judgment, some provision beyond 
what exists in the present constitution is necessary. 


SPEECHES IN CONGRESS. 








ae ET 72 GAT M1 ’ ant tO 






i 5 i. A he += 
CE a eel 
; 










‘ > ~ yo 2a is is re 
Baiod Wrst. 2338.0: COs ee lel. ast page ristnol tot k 
ie : . J mat es < ‘ > 
a8 oF battimmoomt on ide! bovoo sede ve ‘oi <soltarabt 
5 1 >: ar 





ort wi ey 5cn Brey Beige vie taowd 5 at laligey Pig aaty! 
7 +pre _-?. 4 ’ 
“eitollinw ovk tedden AWE BI Ho odode 


roitesa MtacoPier oat 188 










af? vio wiotwalide fF ‘seninenr Be it Pat 16 ony Get 


ite Hogs ica! YEW Bor Aeon egntte da ele 


momiin cf tinsd odt hi tad} pechnetg 108s ae va 






“ ‘ ; 
te vad. fut GroT! .aShOIt -—-+<+- 1b Sab 









Sse Hilt is Jf chs i ato 













as 5 ; ; SONA wlan Sh = é 
= TAG Bet tO mtiouhiend o7f ete! Big is isis! obit a 
te ee 1b eothn VIO OG : yA jo 2 earth Svi to be 
> “ ~~ . . < * 
ia to... ite tad xia Jo teotsiot oe paresd sotat & bovis oft 
* - ne Oe 
* 4 





ory dined off edigiag: dolls 3) te rey suds thd od BT 1s 
Pais “As a ait ann 
fy Heargelsh ssw hasuye ck ah gt pono ny 2 
aoO"rely He Le HOT ee | vn ited rai trek ie, 
engi sated ah. de sohylesity fis 8s oul Ya esto cf 
vtBeh tisth? fey Pike: tates! Oi, 1 eatraile: ait cont 6 } 


fom many sighiw saod! gels Sees, 189% aaa 









, 09 







. 


| Mgywae hela ad) To 2x1 sous dE it 





BANK OF THE UNITED STATES." 


On the 2d of January, 1815, the bill to incorporate a bank being 
under consideration, Mr. Webster moved that it be recommitted to a se- 
lect committee, with instructions to make the following alterations, to 
wit : — 

1. To reduce the capital to twenty-five millions, with liberty to the 
government to subscribe on its own account five millions. 

2. To strike out the thirteenth section. 

3. To strike out so much of said bill as makes it obligatory on the 
bank to lead money to government. 

4. To introduce a section providing, that if the bank do not com- 
mence its operations within the space of months, from the day of 
the passing of the act, the charter shall thereby be forfeited. 

5. To insert a section allowing interest at the rate of per cent. 
on any bill or note of the bank, of which payment shall have been duly 
demanded, according to its tenor, and refused ; and to inflict penalties 
on any directors who shall issue any bills or notes during any suspen- 
sion of specie payment at the bank. 

6. To provide that the said twenty-five millions of capital stock shall 
be composed of five millions of specie, and twenty millions of any of 
the stocks of the United States bearing an interest of six per cent., or of 
treasury -notes. 

7. To strike out of the bill that part of it which restrains the bank from 
selling its stock during the war. 

In support of this motion the following speech was delivered. The 
motion did not prevail, but the bill itself was rejected the same day on 
the third reading. Some of the main principles of these instructions 
were incorporated into the charter of the late bank, when that char- 
ter was granted, the following year ; especially those which were more 








* A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, on 
the 2d of January, 1815. 


36 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


particularly designed to insure the payment of the notes of the bank in 
specie, at all times, on demand. 


However the House may dispose of the motion before it, I 
do not regret that it has been made. One object intended by it, 
at least, is accomplished. It presents a choice, and it shows 
that the gpposition which exists to the bill in its present state is 
not an undistinguishing hostility to whatever may be proposed 
as a national bank, but a hostility to an institution of such a 
useless and dangerous nature as it is believed the existing pro- 
visions of the bill would establish. 

If the bill should be recommitted, and amended according to 
the instructions which I have moved, its principles would be 
materially changed. The capital of the proposed bank will be 
reduced from fifty to thirty millions, and will be composed of spe- 
cie and stocks in nearly the same proportions as the capital of 
the former Bank of the United States. The obligation to lend 
thirty millions of dollars to government, an obligation which 
cannot be fulfilled without committing an act of bankruptcy, 
will be struck out. The power to suspend the payment of its 
notes and bills will be abolished, and the prompt and faithful 
execution of its contracts secured, as far as, from the nature of 
things, it can be secured. ‘The restriction on the sale of its 
stocks will be removed, and as it is a monopoly, provision will 
be made that, if it should not commence its operations in a rea- 
sonable time, the grant shall be forfeited. ‘Thus amended, the 
bill would establish an institution not unlike the last Bank of 
the United States in any particular which is deemed material, 
excepting only the legalized amount of capital. 

To a bank of this nature I should at any time be willing to 
give my support, not as a measure of temporary policy or as an 
expedient for relief from the present poverty of the treasury, but 
as an institution of permanent interest and importance, useful 
to the government and country at all times, and most useful in 
times of commercial prosperity. 

I am sure, Sir, that the advantages which would at present 
result from any bank are greatly overrated. ‘To look to a bank, 
as a source capable, not only of affording a circulating medium 
to the country, but also of supplying the ways and means of 
carrying on the war, especially at a time when the country is 


BANK OF THE UNTIED STATES. 37 


without commerce, is to expect much more than ever will be 
obtained. Such high-wrought hopes can end only in disappoint- 
ment. ‘Che means of supporting an expensive war are not of 
quite so easy acquisition. Banks are not revenue. ‘They can- 
not supply its place. ‘They may afford facilities to its collec- 
tion and distribution. They may furnish with conveniencé 
temporary loans to government, in anticipation of its taxes, 
and render important assistance, in divers ways, to the gen- 
eral operation of finance. ‘They are useful to the state in their 
proper place and sphere, but they are not sources of national 
income. ¢. 

The streams of revenue must flow from deeper fountains. The 
eredit and circulation of bank paper are the effects rather than 
the causes of a profitable commerce and a well-ordered system of 
finance. ‘hey are the props of national wealth and prosperity, 
not the foundations of them. Whoever shall attempt to restore 
the fallen credit of this country by the establishment of new 
banks, merely that they may create new paper, and that govern- 
ment may have a chance of borrowing where it has not bor- 
rowed before, will find himself miserably deceived. It is under 
the influence of no such vain hopes that I yield my assent to the 
establishment of a bank on sound and proper principles. The 
principal good I expect from it is rather future than present. I 
do not see, indeed, that it is likely to produce evil at any time. 
In times to come it will, I hope, be useful. If it were only to be 
harmless, there would be sufficient reason why it should be sup- 
ported in preference to such a contrivance as is now in contem- 
plation. 

The bank which will be created by the bill, if it should pass 
in its present form, is of a most extraordinary, and, as I think, 
alarming nature. ‘The capital is to be fifty millions of dollars; 
five millions in gold and silver, twenty millions in the public 
debt created since the war, ten millions in treasury-notes, and 
fifteen millions to be subscribed by government in stock to be 
issued for that purpose. ‘The ten millions in treasury-notes, 
when received in payment of subscriptions to the bank, are to 
be funded also in United States stocks. The stock subscribed 
by government on its own account, and the stocks in which the 
treasury-notes are to be funded, are to be redeemable only at the 
pleasure of the government. ‘The war stock will be redeemable 

VOL. II. A 


38 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


according to the terms upon which the late loans have been 
negotiated. 

The capital of the bank, then, will be five millions of specie 
and forty-five millions of government stocks. In other words, 
the bank will possess five millions of dollars and the govern- 
ment will owe it forty-five millions. The bank is restrained 
from selling this debt of government during the war, and goyern- 
ment is excused from paying until it shall see fit. The bank is 
also to be under obligation to loan to government thirty millions 
of dollars on demand, to be repaid, not when the convenience 
or necessity of the bank may require, but when debts due to the 
bank from government are paid; that is, when it shall be the 
good pleasure of government. This sum of thirty millions is to 
supply the necessities of government, and to supersede the occa- 
sion of other loans. This loan will doubtless be made on the 
first day of the existence of the bank, because the public wants 
can admit of no delay. “Its condition, then, will be, that it has 
five millions of specie, if it has been able to obtain so much, 
and a debt of seventy-five millions, no part of which it can either 
sell or call in, due to it from government. 

The loan of thirty millions to government can only be made 
by an immediate issue of bills to that amount. If these bills 
should return, the bank will not be able to pay them. ‘This is cer- 
tain; and to remedy this inconvenience, power is given to the 
directors, by the act, to suspend, at their own discretion, the pay- 
ment of their notes until the President of the United States shall 
otherwise order. The President will give no such order, because 
the necessities of government will compel it to draw on the 
bank till the bank becomes as necessitous as itself. Indeed, 
whatever orders may be given or withheld, it will be utterly im- 
possible for the bank to pay its notes. No such thing is expect- 
ed from it. The first note it issues will be dishonored on its re- 
turn, and yet it will continue to pour out its paper so long as 
government can apply it in any degree to its purposes. 

What sort of an institution, Sir, is this? It looks less like a 
bank than a department of government. It will be properly the 
paper-money department. Its capital is government debts; the 
amount of its issues will depend on government necessities ; 
government, in effect, absolves itself from its own debts to the 
bank, and, by way of compensation, absolves the bank from its . 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 39 


own contracts with others. This is, indeed, a wonderful scheme 
of finance. The government is to grow rich, because it is to 
borrow without the obligation of repaying, and is to borrow of a 
bank which issues paper without liability to redeem it. If this 
bank, like other institutions which dull and plodding common 
sense has erected, were to pay its debts, it must have some lim- 
its to its issues of paper, and therefore there would be a point 
beyond which it could not make loans to government.  ‘T'his 
would fall short of the wishes of the contrivers of this system. 
They provide for an unlimited issue of paper in an entire ex- 
emption from payment. They found their bank, in the first 
place, on the discredit of government, and then hope to enrich 
government out of the insolvency of their bank. With them, 
poverty itself is the main source of supply, and bankruptcy a 
mine of inexhaustible treasure. They trust not in the ability of 
the bank, but in its beggary; not in gold and silver collected in 
its vaults, to pay its debts, and fulfil its promises, but in its locks 
and bars, provided by statute, to fasten its doors against the so- 
licitations and clamors of importunate creditors. Such an insti- 
tution, they flatter themselves, will not only be able to sustain 
itself, but to buoy up the sinking credit of the government. A 
bank which does not pay is to guarantee the engagements of a 
government which does not pay! “John Doe is to become se- 
curity for Richard Roe.” Thus the empty vaults of the treasu- 
ry are to be filled from the equally empty vaults of the bank, 
and the ingenious invention of a partnership between insolvents 
is to restore and reéstablish the credit of both. 

Sir, I can view this only as a system of rank speculation and 
enormous mischief. Nothing in our condition is worse, in my 
opinion, than the inclination of government to throw itself upon 
such desperate courses. If we are to be saved, it is not to be 
by such means. If public credit is to be restored, this is not one 
of the measures that will help to restore it. If the treasury is 
exhausted, this bank will not fill it with any thing valuable. If 
a safe circulating medium be wanted for the community, it will 
not be found in the paper of such a corporation. 

I wish, Sir, that those who imagine that these objects, or any 
of them, will be effected by such a bank as this, would describe 
the manner in which they expect it to be done. What is the 
process which is to produce these results? If it is perceived, it 


40 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


can be described. The bank will not operate either by miracle 
or magic. Whoever expects any good from it ought to be able 
to tell us in what way that good is to be produced. As yet, we 
have had nothing but general ideas and vague and loose expres- 
sions. An indefinite and indistinct notion is entertained, no- 
body here seems to know on what ground, that this bank is to 
reanimate public credit, fill the treasury, and remove all the evils 
that have arisen from the depreciation of the paper of the exist- 
ing banks. 

Some gentlemen, who do not profess themselves to be in all 
respects pleased with the provisions of the bill, seem to content 
themselves with an idea that nothing better can be obtained, 
and that it is necessary to do something. A strong impression 
that something must be done is the origin of many bad meas- 
ures. It is easy, Sir, to do something, but the object is to do 
something useful. It is better to do nothing than to do mis- 
chief. It is much better, in my opinion, to make no bank, than 
to pass the bill as it now is. 

The interests to be affected by this measure, the finances, the 
public credit, and the circulating medium of the country, are too 
important to be hazarded in schemes like these. If we wish to 
restore the public credit and to reéstablish the finances, we have 
the beaten road before us. All true analogy, all experience, and 
all just knowledge of ourselves and our condition, point one way. 
A wise and systematic economy, and a settled and substantial 
revenue, are the means to be relied on; not excessive issues of 
bank-notes, a forced circulation, and all the miserable contrivan- 
ces to which political folly can resort, with the idle expectation 
of giving to mere paper the quality of money. These are all 
the inventions of a short-sighted policy, vexed and goaded by 
the necessities of the moment, and thinking less of a permanent 
remedy than of shifts and expedients to avoid the present dis- 
tress. ‘They have been a thousand times adopted, and a thou- 
sand times exploded as delusive and ruinous, as destructive of 
all solid revenue, and incompatible with the security of private 
property. 

It is, Sir, sufficiently obvious, that, to produce any benefit, 
this bank must be so constructed as that its notes shall have 
credit with the public. The first inquiry, therefore, should be, 
whether the bills of a bank of this kind will not be immediately 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. Al 


and greatly depreciated. I think they will. It would be a won- 
der if they should not. This effect will be produced by that 
excessive issue of its paper which the bank must make in its 
loan to government. Whether its issues of paper are excessive 
will depend, not on the nominal amount of its capital, but on its 
ability to redeem it. ‘This is the only safe criterion. Very spe- 
cial cases may perhaps furnish exceptions, but there is, in gen- 
eral, no security for the credit of paper, but the ability in those 
who emit to redeem it. Whenever bank-notes are not con- 
vertible into gold and silver at the will of the holder, they be- 
come of less value than gold and silver. All experiments on 
this subject have come to the same result. It is so clear, and 
has been so universally admitted, that it would be waste of 
time to dwell upon it. The depreciation may not be sensibly 
perceived the first day, or the first week, it takes place. It will 
first be discerned in what is called the rise of specie; it will next 
be seen in the increased price of all commodities. The circulat- 
ing medium of a commercial community must be that which is 
also the circulating medium of other commercial communities, 
or must be capable of being converted into that medium with- 
out loss. It must be able, not only to pass in payments and 
receipts among individuals of the same society and nation, but 
to adjust and discharge the balance of exchanges between dif- 
ferent nations. It must be something which has a value abroad, 
as well as at home, and by which foreign as well as domestic 
debts can be satisfied. ‘The precious metals alone answer these 
purposes. ‘They alone, therefore, are money, and whatever else 
is to perform the offices of money must be their representative, 
and capable of being turned into them at will. So long as bank 
paper retains this quality, it is a substitute for money; divested 
of this, nothing can give it that character. No solidity of funds, 
no sufficiency of assets, no confidence in the solvency of bank- 
ing institutions, has ever enabled them to keep up their paper to 
the value of gold and silver any longer than they paid gold and 
silver for it, on demand. ‘This will continue to be the case so 
long as those metals shall continue to be the standard of value 
aud the general circulating medium among nations. 

A striking illustration of this common principle is found in 
the early history of the Bank of England. In the year 1697, it 
had been so liberal of its loans, that it was compelled to sus- 

4 ¥ 


42 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


pend the payment of its notes. Its paper immediately fell to a 
discount of near twenty per cent. Yet such was the public 
opinion of the solidity of its funds, that its stock then sold for 
one hundred and ten per cent., although no more than sixty per 
cet. upon the subscription had been paid in. The same fate, 
as is well known, attended the banks of Scotland, when they 
adopted the practice of inserting in their notes a clause, giving 
the banks an option of paying their notes on demand, or six 
months after demand, with interest. Paper of this sort was not 
convertible into specie, at the pleasure of the holder; and no 
conviction of the ability of the bank which issued it could pre- 
serve it from depreciation. 

The suspension of specie payments by the Bank of England, 
in 1797, and the consequences which followed, afford no argu- 
ment to overthrow this general experience. If Bank of Eng- 
land notes were not immediately depreciated on that occasion, 
depreciation, nevertheless, did ensue. Very favorable causes 
existed to prevent their sudden depression. It was an old and 
rich institution. It was known to be under the most discreet 
and independent management. Government had no control 
over it, to force it to make loans against its interest or its will. 
On the contrary, it compelled the government to pay, though 
with much inconvenience to itself, a very considerable sum 
which was due to it. ‘The country enjoyed, at that time, an 
extensive commerce, and a revenue of three hundred millions of 
dollars was collected and distributed through the bank. Under 
all these advantages, however, the difference of price between 
bank-notes and coin became at one time so great, as to threaten 
the most dangerous consequences. Suppose the condition of 
England to have been reversed. Suppose that, instead of a 
prosperous and increasing commerce, she had suffered the ruin 
of her trade, and that the product of her manufactures had lain 
upon her hands, as the product of our agriculture now perishes 
in ours. Does any one imagine that her circulating paper could 
have existed and maintained any credit, in such a change of 
her condition? What ought to surprise us is, not that her bank 
paper was depreciated, but that it was not depreciated sooner 
and lower than in fact it was. The reason can only be found 
in that extraordinary combination of favorable circumstances, 
which never existed before, and is hardly to be expected again. 
Much less is it to be discovered in our condition at present, 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 43 


But we have experience nearer home. The paper of all the 
banks south of New England has become depreciated to an 
alarming extent. ‘This cannot be denied. ‘The idea that this 
depreciation exists only at a distance from the banks respective- 
ly is unfounded and absurd. It exists everywhere. ‘The rates of 
exchange, both foreign and domestic, put this point beyond con- 
troversy. If a bill of exchange on Europe can be purchased, as 
it may, twenty per cent. cheaper in Boston than in Baltimore, 
the reason must be that it is paid for in Boston in money, and 
in Baltimore in something twenty per cent. less valuable than 
money. Notwithstanding the depression of their paper, it is 
not probable that any doubt is entertained of the sufficiency of 
the funds of the principal banks. Certainly no such doubt is 
the cause of the fall of their paper; because the depression of 
the paper of all the banks in any place is, as far as I learn, gen- 
erally uniform and equal; whereas, if public opinion proceeded 
at all upon the adequacy or inadequacy of their funds, it would 
necessarily come to different results in different cases, as some 
of these institutions must be supposed to be richer than others. 

Sir, something must be discovered which has hitherto escaped 
the observation of mankind, before you can give to paper in- 
tended for circulation the value of a metallic currency, any 
longer than it represents that currency, and is convertible into it, 
at the will of the holder. The paper of this bank, if you make 
it, will be depreciated, for the same reason that the paper of 
other banks that have gone before it, and of those which now 
exist around us, has been depreciated, because it is not to pay 
specie for its notes. Other institutions, setting out perhaps on 
honest principles, have fallen into discredit, through mismanage- 
ment or misfortune. But this bank is to begin with insolvency. 
It is to issue its bills to the amount of thirty millions, when 
every body knows it cannot pay them. It is to commence its 
existence in dishonor. It is to draw its first breath in disgrace. 
The promise contained in the first note it sends forth is to be a 
false promise, and whoever receives the note is to take it with 
the knowledge that it is not to be paid according to the terms 
of it. 

But this, Sir, is not all. The framers of this bill have not 
done their work by halves. They have put the depreciation of 
the notes of their bank beyond all doubt or uncertainty. They 


44 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


have made assurance doubly sure. In addition to excessive 
issues of paper, and the failure to make payments, both which 
they provide for by law, they make the capital of the bank to 
consist principally of public stock. If this stock should be 
sold as in the former Bank of the United States, the evil would 
be less. But the bank has not the power to sell it, and, for 
all purposes of enabling it to fulfil its engagements, its funds 
might as well be at the bottom of the ocean as in government 
stocks, of which it cannot enforce payment, and of which it 
cannot dispose. The credit of this institution is to be founded 
on public funds, not on private property or commercial credit. 
It is to be a financial, not a commercial bank. Its credit can 
hardly, therefore, be better at any time than the credit of the 
government. If the stocks be depreciated, so of course must 
every thing be which rests on the stocks. It would require-extra- 
ordinary ingenuity to show how a bank, which is founded on 
the public debt, is to have any better reputation than the debt 
itself. It must be some very novel invention which makes the 
superstructure keep its place after the foundation has fallen. 
The argument seems to stand thus. The public funds, it is ad- 
mitted, have little credit; the bank will have no credit which it 
does not borrow of the funds; but the bank will be in full credit. 
If, Sir, we were in a temper to learn wisdom from experience, 
the history of most of the banks on the continent of Europe 
might teach us the futility of all these contrivances. Those in- 
stitutions, like this before us, were established for purposes of 
finance, not purposes of commerce. ‘I'he same fortune has hap- 
pened to them all. Their credit has sunk. ‘Their respective 
governments go to them for money when they can get it no- 
where else; and the banks can relieve their wants only by new 
issues of their own paper. As this is not redeemed, the inva- 
riable consequence of depreciation follows; and this has some- 
times led to the miserable and destructive expedient of deprecia- 
tion of the coin itself. Such are the banks of Petersburg, Co- 
penhagen, Vienna, and other cities of Europe; and while the 
paper of these government banks has been thus depressed, that 
of other banks existing in their neighborhood, unconnected with 
government, and conducting their business on the basis of com- 
mercial credit, has retained a value equivalent to that of coin. 
Excessive issues of paper, and a close connection with govern- 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 45 


ment, are the circumstances which of all others are the most 
certain to destroy the credit of bank paper. If there were no 
excessive issues, or, in other words, if the bank paid its notes in 
specie on demand, its connection with government and its in- 
terest in the funds would not, perhaps, materially affect the 
circulation of its paper, although they would naturally diminish 
the value of its stock. But when these two circumstances exist 
in the condition of any bank, that it does not pay its notes, and 
that its funds are in public stocks, and all its operations inti- 
mately blended with the operations of government, nothing fur- 
ther need be known, to be quite sure that its paper will not 
answer the purpose of a creditable circulating medium. 

I look upon it, therefore, Sir, as certain, that a very considera- 
ble discount will attach itself to the notes of this bank the first 
day of their appearance; that this discount will continue to in- 
crease; and unless Congress should be able to furnish some 
remedy which is not certain, the paper, in the end, will be worth 
nothing. If this happens, not only will no one of the benefits 
proposed be obtained, but evils of the most alarming magnitude 
will follow. All the horrors of a paper-money system are before 
us. If we venture on the present expedient, we shall hardly be 
able to avoid them. ‘The ruin of public affairs and the wreck 
of private property will ensue. 

I would ask, Sir, whether the friends of this measure have 
well considered what effect it will produce on the revenue of the 
country? By the provisions of this bill, the notes of this bank 
are to be received in payment of all taxes and other dues to gov- 
ernment. They cannot be refused on account of the deprecia- 
tion of their value. Government binds itself to receive them at 
par, although it should be obliged immediately to pay them out 
at a discount of a hundred per cent. It is certain, then, that a 
loss in the revenue will be sustained, equal to any depreciation 
which may take place in this paper; and when the paper shall 
come to nothing, the revenue of the country will come to noth- 
ing along with it. ‘This has happened to other countries where 
this wretched system has been adopted, and it will happen here. 
The Austrian government resorted to a similar experiment in a 
very critical period of its affairs, in 1809, the year of the last 
campaign between that country and France previous to the 
coalition. Pressed by the necessities of the occasion, the gov- 


46 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


ernment caused a large quantity of paper to be issued, which 
was to be received in imposts and taxes. ‘T’he paper immedi- 
ately fell to a depreciation of four for one. The consequence 
was, that the government lost its revenue, and with it the 
means of supplying its armies and defending its empire. Is 
this government now ready, Sir, to put its resources all at haz- 
ard, by pursuing a similar course? Is it ready to sacrifice its 
whole substantial revenue and permanent supplies to an ill-con- 
trived, ill-considered, dangerous, and ruinous project, adopted 
only as the means of obtaining a little present and momentary 
relief? 

It ought to be considered, also, what effects this bank will pro- 
duce on other banking institutions already existing, and on the 
paper which they have issued. The aggregate capital of these 
institutions is large. ‘The amount of their notes is large, and 
these notes constitute, at present, in a great portion of the coun- 
try, the only circulating medium, if they can be called a circu- 
lating medium. Whatever affects this paper, either to raise it 
or depress it lower than it is, affects the interests of every man 
in the community. It is sufficient on this point to refer to the 
memorial from the banks of New York. ‘That assures us, that 
the operation of such a bank as this bill would establish must 
be to increase the difficulties and distress which the existing 
banks now experience, and to render it nearly impossible for 
them to resume the payment of their notes. This is what every 
man would naturally expect. Paper already depreciated will 
necessarily be sunk still lower, when another flood of if 
ated paper is forced into circulation. 

Very recently this government refused to extend Hs charter 
oi the Bank of the United States, upon the ground that it was 
unconstitutional for Congress to create banks. Many of the 
State banks owe their existence to this decision. It was an in- 
vitation to the States to incorporate as much banking capital as 
would answer all the purposes of the country. Notwithstand- 
ing what we may now see and hear, it would then have been 
deemed a gross imputation on the consistency of government, 
if any man had expressed an expectation, that in five years all 
these constitutional scruples would be forgotten, all the dangers 
to political liberty from moneyed institutions disregarded, and a 
bank proposed upon the most extraordinary principles, with an 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 47 


unprecedented amount of capital, and with no obligation to ful- 
fil its contracts. ‘The State banks have not forced themselves in 
the way of government. They were established, many of them 
at least, when government had declared its purpose to have no 
bank of its own. ‘They deserve some regard on their own ac- 
count, and on account of those particularly concerned in them. 
But they deserve much more consideration, on account of the 
quantity of paper which is in circulation, and the interest which 
ihe whole community has in it. 

Let it also be recollected, Sir, that the present condition of 
the banks is principally owing to their advances to government. 
The treasury has borrowed of the banks, or of those who them- 
selves borrowed of the banks, till the banks have become as 
poor, and almost as much discredited, as the treasury itself. 
They have depreciated their paper, nearly ruined themselves, 
and brought the sorest distress on the country, by doing that on 
a small scale which this bank is to perform ona scale vastly 
larger. It is almost unpardonable in the conductors of these 
institutions, not to have foreseen the consequences.which have 
resulted from the course pursued by them. ‘They were all plain 
and visible. If they have any apology, it is that they were no 
blinder than the government, and that they yielded to those 
who would take no denial. It will be altogether unpardonable 
in us, if, with this as well as all other experience before us, we 
continue to pursue a system which must inevitably lead us 
through depreciation of currency, paper-money, tender-laws, 
and all the contemptible and miserable contrivances of disor- 
dered finance and national insolvency, to complete and entire 
bankruptcy in the end. 

I hope the House will recommit the bill for amendment. 


THE LEGAL CURRENCY- 


A situ reported by Mr. Calhoun for the restoration of the currency 
was rejected in the House of Representatives on the 25th of April, 1816. 
On the 26th, Mr. Webster introduced three resolutions having the same 
object in view; and in support of them made the following speech. 
The first two, being declaratory of principles only, were withdrawn 
at the request of several gentlemen, who were in favor of the third 
resolution, which contained Mr. Webster’s plan for restoring the cur- 
iency. 

it provided that the Secretary of the Treasury should adopt such 
measures as he might deem necessary, to cause, as soon as might be, 
all sums of money due to the United States “‘to be collected and paid 
in the legal currency of the United States, or treasury-notes, or notes 
of the Bank of the United States, as by law provided and declared, 
or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand, in the 
said legal currency of the United States’’; and it directed that, after 
the 20th of February next ensuing, nothing else should be received in 
payment of the public dues. 

This resolution was received with great favor by the House, and 
passed through all the stages of legislation on the same day (the 26th 
of April) by a majority of more than two thirds. It was approved by 
President Madison on the 80th, and was completely successful in restor- 
ing a sound currency. 


Mr. Speaxer, —I have felt it to be my duty to call the 
attention of the House once more to the subject of the collec- 
tion of the revenue, and to present the resolutions which are 


* A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, 
on the 26th of April, 1816, on the Collection of the Revenue in the Legal Cur- 
rency of the Country. 


THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 49 


now submitted. JI have been the more inclined to do this from 
an apprehension that the rejection, yesterday, of the bill which 
had been introduced, may be construed into an abandonment, 
on the part of the House, of all hope of remedying the existing 
evil. I have had, it is true, some objections against proceed- 
ing ‘by way of bill; because the case is not one in which the 
law is deficient, but one in which the execution of the law 
is deficient. ‘The great object, however, is to obtain a decis- 
ion of this and the other house, that the present mode of receiv- 
ing the revenue shall not be continued; and as this might be 
substantially effected by the bill, I had hoped that it might 
pass. ‘This hope has been disappointed. ‘The bill has been 
rejected. The House has put its negative upon the only propo- 
sition which has been submitted to it, for correcting a state of 
things which every body knows to exist in plain violation of the 
Constitution, and in open defiance of the written letter of the 
law. For one, I can never consent to adjourn, leaving this 
implied sanction of the House upon all that has taken place, 
and all that may hereafter take place. I hope not to hear 
again that there is not now time to act on this question. If 
other gentlemen consider the question as important as I do, 
they will not forbear to act on it from any desire, however 
strong, to bring the session to an early close. 

The situation of the country, in regard to its finances and 
the collection of its revenues, is most deplorable. With a per- 
fectly sound legal currency, the national revenues are not col- 
iected in this currency, but in paper of various sorts and various 
degrees of value. The origin and progress of this evil are dis- 
tinctly known, but it is not easy to see its duration or its future 
extent, if an adequate remedy be not soon found. Before the 
war, the business of the country was conducted principally by 
means of the paper of the different State banks. As these 
were in good credit, and. paid their notes in gold and silver on 
demand, no great evil was experienced from the circulation of 
their paper. Not being, however, a part of the legal money of 
the country, it could not, by law, be received in the payment of 
duties, taxes, or other debts to government. But being paya- 
ble, and hitherto regularly paid, on demand, the collectors and 
agents of government had generally received it as cash; it had 
been depos.ted as cash in the banks which received the deposits 

VOL. III. 5) 


50 THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 


of government, and from them it had been drawn as cash, and 
paid off to creditors of the public. 

During the war this state of things changed. Many of the 
banks had been induced to make loans to a very great amount 
to the government. These loans were made by an issue of their 
own bills. This proceeding threw into circulation an immense 
quantity of bank paper, in no degree corresponding with the 
mercantile business of the country, and resting, for its payment 
and redemption, on nothing but the government stocks, which 
were held by the banks. The consequence immediately fol- 
lowed, which it would be imputing a great degree of blindness 
both to the government and to the banks to suggest that they 
had not foreseen. The excess of paper which was found every- 
where created alarm. Demands began to be made on the 
banks, and they all stopped payment. No contrivance to get * 
money without inconvenience to the people ever had a shorter 
course of experiment, or a more unequivocal termination. ‘The 
depreciation of bank-notes was the necessary consequence of a 
neglect or refusal to pay them, on the part of those who issued 
them. It took place immediately, and has continued, with occa- 
sional fluctuations in the depression, to the present moment. 
What still further increases the evil is, that this bank paper, 
being the issue of very many institutions, situated in different 
parts of the country, and possessing different degrees of credit, 
the depreciation has not been, and is not now, uniform through- 
out the United States. It is not the same at Baltimore as at 
Philadelphia, nor the same at Philadelphia as at New York. 
In New England, the banks have. not stopped payment in 
specie, and of course their paper has not been depressed at 
all. But the notes of banks which have ceased to pay specie 
have, nevertheless, been, and still are, received for duties and 
taxes, in the places where such banks exist. ‘The consequence 
of all this is, that the people of the United States pay their 
duties and taxes in currencies of different values in different 
places. In other words, taxes and duties are higher in some 
places than they are in others, by as much as the value of 
gold and silver is greater than the value of the several descrip- 
tions of bank paper which are received by government. ‘This 
difference in relation to the paper of the District where we now 
are, is twenty-five per cent. Taxes and duties, therefore, col- 


THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 51 


jected in Massachusetts, are one quarter higher than the taxes 
and duties which are collected, by virtue of the same laws, in 
the District of Columbia. 

By the Constitution of the United States, it is certain that 
all duties, taxes, and excises ought to be uniform throughout 
the country; and that no preference should be given, by any 
regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State 
over those of another. ‘This constitutional provision, it is obvi- 
ous, is flagrantly violated. Duties and taxes are not uniform. 
They are higher in some places than in others. A citizen of 
New England pays his taxes in gold and silver, or their equiva- 
lent. From his hand the collector will not receive, and is in- 
structed by government not to receive, the paper of the banks 
which do not pay their notes on demand, and which notes he 
could obtain twenty or twenty-five per cent. cheaper than that 
which is demanded of him. Yet a citizen of the Middle States 
pays his taxes in these notes at par. Can a greater injustice 
than this be conceived? Can constitutional provisions be dis- 
regarded in a more essential point? Commercial preferences 
also are given, which, if they should be continued, would be 
sufficient to annihilate the commerce of some cities and some 
States, while they would greatly promote that of others. ‘The 
importing merchant of Boston pays the duties upon his goods, 
either in specie or cash notes, which are at least twenty per 
cent., or in treasury-notes, which are ten per cent. more valu- 
able than the notes which are paid for duties, at. par, by the 
importing merchant at Baltimore. Surely this is not to be 
endured. Such monstrous inequality and injustice cannot con- 
tinue. Since the commencement of this course of things, it 
can be shown that the people of the Northern States have paid 
a million of dollars more than their just proportion of the pub- 
lic burdens. A similar inequality, though somewhat less in 
degree, has fallen upon the States south of the Potomac, in 
which the paper in circulation, although not equivalent to specie, 
is yet of higher value than the bank-notes of this District, Mary- 
land, and the Middle States. 

But it is not merely the inequality and injustice of this sys- 
tem, if that may be called system which is rather the want of 
all system, that need reform. It throws the whole revenue into 
derangerrent and endless confusion. It prevents the possibility 


VJ. OF (LL. LIB. 


52 THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 


of order, method, or certainty in the public receipts or disburse- 
ments. ‘This mass of depressed paper, thrown out at first in 
loans to accommodate government, has done little else than 
embarrass and distress government. It can hardly be said to 
circulate, but it lies in the channel of circulation, and chokes it 
up by its bulk and its sluggishness. In a great portion of the 
country the dues are not paid, or are badly paid; and in an 
equal portion of the country the public creditors are not paid, or 
are paid badly. 

It is quite clear, that by the statute all duties and taxes are 
required to be paid in the legal money of the United States, 
or in treasury-notes, agreeably to recent provisions. It is just 
as clear, that the law has been disregarded, and that the notes 
of banks of a hundred different descriptions, and almost as 
many different values, have been received, and still are received, 
where the statute requires legal money or treasury-notes to be 
paid. 

In these circumstances, I cannot persuade myself that Con- 
egress will adjourn, without attempting something by way of 
remedy. In my opinion, no greater evil has threatened us. 
Nothing can more endanger, either the existence and preserva- 
tion of the public revenue, or the security of private property, 
than the consequences which are to be apprehended from the 
present course of things, if they be not arrested by a timely and 
an effectual interference. Let gentlemen consider what will 
probably happen, if Congress should rise without the adoption 
of any measure on the subject. 

Virginia, having passed a law for compelling the banks in 
that State to limit the circulation of their paper, and resume 
specie payments by the autumn, will, doubtless, repeal it. ‘The 
States farther to the south will probably fall into a similar relax- 
ation, for it is hardly to be expected that they will have firmness 
and perseverance enough to persist in their present most prudent 
and commendable course, without the countenance of the gen- 
eral government. If, in addition to these events, an abandon- 
ment of the wholesome system which has thus far prevailed in 
the Northern States, or any relaxation of that system, should take 
place, the government is in danger of falling into a condition, 
from which it will hardly be able to extricate itself for twenty 
years, if indeed it shall ever be able to extricate itself; and if 


THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 53 


that state of things, instead of being changed by the government, 
shall not change the government.. 

It is our business to foresee this danger, and to avoid it. 
There are some political evils which are seen as soon as they 
are dangerous, and which alarm at once as well the people as 
the government. Wars and invasions, therefore, are not always 
the most certain destroyers of national prosperity. ‘They come 
in no questionable shape. ‘They announce their own approach, 
and the general security is preserved by the general alarm. 
Not so with the evils of a debased coin, a depreciated paper cur- 
rency, or a depressed and falling public credit. Not so with the 
plausible and insidious mischiefs of a paper-money system. 
‘These insinuate themselves in the shape of facilities, accommo- 
dation, and relief. ‘They hold out the most fallacious hope 
of an easy payment of debts, and a lighter burden of tax- 
ation. It is easy for a portion of the people to imagine that 
government may properly continue to receive depreciated paper, 
because they have received it, and because it is more conven- 
jient to obtain it than to obtain other paper or specie. But on 
these subjects it is that government ought to exercise its own 
peculiar wisdom and caution. It is supposed to possess, on 
subjects of this nature, somewhat more of foresight than has 
fallen to the lot of individuals. It is bound to foresee the evil 
before every man feels it, and to take all necessary measures to 
guard against it, although they may be measures attended with 
some difliculty and not without temporary inconvenience. In 
my humble judgment, the evil demands the immediate attention 
of Congress. It is not certain, and in my opinion not probable, 
that it will ever cure itself. It is more likely to grow by indul- 
gence, while the remedy which must in the end be applied will 
become less efficacious by delay. 

The only power which the general government possesses of 
restraining the issues of the State banks, is to refuse their notes 
in the receipts of the treasury. ‘This power it can exercise now, 
or at least it can provide now for exercising in reasonable 
time, because the currency of some part of the country is yet 
sound, and the evil is not universal. If it should become 
universal, who that hesitates now will then propose any ade- 
quate means of relief? If a measure like the bill of yester- 
day, or the resolutions of to-day, can hardly pass here now, 

_ 


o4 THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 


what hope is there that any efficient measure will be adopted 
hereafter ? 

The conduct of the treasury department in receiving the notes 
of the banks, after they had suspended payment, might, or might 
not, have been excused by the necessity of the case. ‘That is 
not now the subject of inquiry. I wish such inquiry had been 
instituted. It ought to have been. It is of dangerous conse- 
quence to permit plain omissions to execute the law to pass off, 
under any circumstances, without inquiry. It would probably be 
easier to prove that the treasury must have continued to receive 
such notes, or that all payments to government would have 
been suspended, than it would be to justify the previous nego- 
tiations of great loans at the banks, which was a voluntary trans- 
action, induced by no particular necessity, and which is, never- 
theless, beyond doubt, the principal cause of their present con- 
dition. But I have expressed my belief on more than one 
occasion, and I repeat the opinion, that it was the duty, and in 
the power, of the Secretary of the Treasury, on the return of 
peace, to return to the legal and proper mode of collecting the 
revenue. ‘The paper of the banks rose on that occasion al- 
most to an equality with specie; that was the favorable mo- 
ment. ‘The banks in which the public money was deposited 
ought to have been induced to lead the way, by the sale of their 
government stocks, and other measures calculated to bring about, 
moderately and gradually, but regularly and certainly, the resto- 
ration of the former and only safe state of things. It can hardly 
be doubted, that the influence of the treasury could have affected 
all this. If not, it could have withdrawn the deposits and coun- 
tenance of government from institutions which, against all rule 
and all propriety, were holding great sums in government stocks, 
and making enormous profits from the circulation of their own 
dishonored paper. ‘That which was most wanted was the des- 
ignation of a time for the corresponding operation of banks in 
different places. This could have been made by the head of the 
treasury, better than by any body or every body else. But the 
occasion was suffered to pass by unimproved, and the credit of 
the banks soon fell again, when it was found they used none 
of the means which the opportunity afforded them for enabling 
them to fulfil their engagements. 

As to any power of compulsion to be exercised over the State 


THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 55 


banks, they are not subject to the direct control of the general 
government. It is for the State authorities which created them 
to decide whether they have acted according to their charters, 
and if not, what shall be the remedy for their irregularities. But 
from such of them as continued to receive deposits of public 
money, government had a right to expect that they.would con- 
duct their concerns according to the safe and well-known prin- 
ciples which should properly govern such institutions. It is 
bound also to collect its taxes of the people on a uniform sys- 
tem. ‘These rights and these duties are too important to be sur- 
rendered to the accommodation of any particular interest or any 
temporary purpose. 

The resolutions before the House take no notice of the State 
banks. ‘They express neither praise nor censure of them. ‘They 
neither commend them for their patriotism in the loans made to 
government, nor propose to tax them for their neglect or refusal 
to pay their debts. ‘They assume no power of interfering with 
these institutions. ‘They say not one word about compelling 
them to resume their payments; they leave that to the consider- 
ation of the banks themselves, or to those who have a right to 
call them to account for any misconduct in that respect. But 
the resolutions declare that taxes ought to be equal; that pref- 
erences ought not to be given; that the revenues of the country 
ought not to be diminished in amount, nor hazarded altogether, 
by the receipt of varying and uncertain paper; and that the 
present state of things, in which all these unconstitutional, ille- 
gal, and dangerous ingredients are mixed, ought not to exist. 

It has been said, that these resolutions may be construed into 
a justification of the past conduct of the treasury department. 
Such an objection has been anticipated. It was made, in my 
opinion, with much more justice to the bill rejected yesterday, 
and a provision was therefore subsequently introduced into 
that bill to exclude such an inference. ‘This is certainly not the 
time to express any justification or approbation of the conduct 
of that department on this subject, and I trust these resolutions 
do not imply it. Nor do the resolutions propose to express 
any censure. A sufficient reason for declining to do either is, 
that the facts are not sufficiently known. What loss has actu- 
ally happened, what amount — it is said to be large — may be 
now in the treasury, in notes which will not pass, or under what 


56 THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 


circumstances these were received, is not now sufficiently ascer- 
tained. 

But before these resolutions are rejected, on the ground that 
they may shield the treasury department from responsibility, it 
ought to be clearly shown that they are capable of such a con- 
struction. .The mere passing of any resolution cannot have that 
effect. A declaration of what ought to be done does not neces- 
sarily imply any sanction of what has been done. It may some- 
times imply the contrary. These resolutions cannot be made to 
imply any more than this, — that the financial affairs of the coun- 
try are in such a condition that the revenue cannot be instantly 
collected in legal currency. ‘This they do imply, and this I sup- 
pose almost all admit to be true. An instantaneous execution 
of the law, without warning or notice, could in my opinion pro- 
duce nothing, in a portion of the country, but an entire suspen- 
sion of payments. 

But to whose fault it is owing that the affairs of the country 
are reduced to this condition, they do not declare. They do not 
prevent, or in any degree embarrass, future inquiry on that sub- 
ject. They speak to the fact that the finances are deranged. 
They say, also, that reformation, though it must be gradual, 
ought to be immediately begun, and to be carried to perfection 
in. the shortest time practicable. ‘They cannot by any fair con- 
struction be made to express the approbation of Congress on the 
past conduct of any high officer of government; and if the time 
shall ever come when this House shall deem investigation neces- 
sary, it must be a case of very unpromising aspect, and of most 
fearful issue, which shall afford no other hope of escape than by 
setting up these resolutions by way of bar to an inquiry. 

Nor is it any objection to this measure that inquiry has not 
first been had. ‘T'wo duties may be supposed to have rested on 
the House: the one, to inquire into the origin of the evil, if it 
needed inquiry; and the other, to find and apply the remedy. 
Because one of these duties has not hitherto been discharged, is 
no reason why the other should be longer neglected. While we 
are deciding which to do first, the time of the session is going 
by us, and neither may be done. In the mean time, public mis- 
chiefs of unknown magnitude and incalculable duration threaten 
the country. I see no equivalent, no consolation, no mitigation, 
for these evils in the future responsibility of departments. Let 


THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 57 


gentlemen show me any responsibility which will not be a name 
and a mockery. If, when we meet here again, it shall be found 
that all the barriers which have hitherto, in any degree, re- 
strained the emissions of a paper money of the very worst sort, 
have given way, and that the floods have broken in upon us and 
come over us, —if it shall be found that revenues have failed, that 
the public credit, now a little propped and supported by a state of 
peace and commerce, has again tottered and fallen to the ground, 
and that all the operations of government are at a stand, — 
what then will be the value of the responsibility of departments ? 
How great, then, the value of inquiry, when the evil is past pre- 
vention, when officers may have gone out of place, and when, 
indeed, the whole administration will necessarily be dissolving 
by the expiration of the term for which the chief executive mag- 
istrate was chosen? I cannot consent to stake the chance of 
the greatest public mischiefs upon a reliance on any such re- 
sponsibility. ‘lhe stakes are too unequal. 

As to the opinion advanced by some, that the object of the res- 
olutions cannot in any way be answered, that the revenues cannot 
be collected otherwise than as they are now, in the paper of any 
and every banking association which chooses to issue paper, it 
cannot for a moment be admitted. ‘This would be at once giv- 
ing up the government; for what is government without reve- 
nue, and what is a revenue that is gathered together in the vary- 
ing, fluctuating, discredited, depreciated, and still falling prom- 
issory notes of two or three hundred distinct, and, as to this gov- 
ernment, irresponsible banking companies? If it cannot collect 
its revenues in a better manner than this, it must cease to be a 
government. ‘This thing, therefore, is to be done; at any rate it 
is to be attempted. ‘That it will be accomplished by the treas- 
ury department, without the interference of Congress, I have no 
belief. If from that source no reformation came when reforma- 
tion was easy, it is not now to be expected. Especially after 
the vote of yesterday, those whose interest it is to continue the 
present state of things will arm themselves with the authority 
of Congress. They will justify themselves by the decision of 
this House. They will say, and say truly, that this House, hav- 
ing taking up the subject and discussed it, has not thought fit 
so much as to declare that it is expedient ever to relieve the 
country orits revenues from a paper-money system. Whoever 


58 THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 


believes that the treasury department will oppose this tide, aided 
as it will be by strong feeling and great interest, has more faith 
in that department than has fallen to my lot. It is the duty of 
this House to interfere with its own authority. Having taxed 
the people with no light hand, it is now its duty to take care 
that the people do not sustain these burdens in vain. The taxes 
are not borne without feeling. ‘They will not be borne without 
complaint, if, by mismanagement in collection, their utility to 
government should be lost, and they should get into the treasury 
at last only in discredited and useless paper. 

A bank of thirty-five millions has been created for the pro- 
fessed purpose of correcting the evils of our circulation, and 
facilitating the receipts and expenditures of government. Iam 
not so sanguine in the hope of great benefit from this measure 
as others are. But the treasury is also authorized to issue 
twenty-five millions of treasury-notes, eighteen or twenty mil- 
lions of which remain yet to be issued, and which are also 
allowed by law to be received for duties and taxes. In addition 
to these is the coin which is in the country, and which is sure 
to come forth into circulation whenever there is a demand for it. 
These means, if wisely and skilfully administered, are sufficient 
to prevent any particular pressure, or great inconvenience, in 
returning to the legal mode of collecting the revenue. It is true, 
it may be easier for the people in the States in which the depre- 
ciated paper exists to pay their taxes in such paper than in the 
legal currency of treasury-notes, because they can get it cheaper. 
But this is only saying that it is easier to pay a small tax than 
to pay a large one, or that money costs more than that which is 
less valuable than money, a proposition not to be disputed. 
But a medium of payment convenient for the people and safe 
for the government will be furnished, and may everywhere be 
obtained for a reasonable price. This is all that can justly be 
expected of Congress. Having provided this, they ought to 
require all parts of the country to conform to the same measure 
of justice. If taxes be not necessary, they should not be laid. 
If laid, they ought to be collected without preference or par- 
tiality. : 

But while some gentlemen oppose the resolutions because 
tney fix a day too near, others think they fix a day too distant. 
In my own judgment, it is not so material what the time 1s, as 


THE LEGAL CURRENCY. 59 


it is to fix a time. ‘The great object is to settle the question, 
that our legal currency is to be preserved, and that we are not 
about to embark on the ocean of paper money. ‘The State 
banks, if they consult their own interest, or the interest of the 
community, will dispose of their government stocks, and _pre- 
pare themselves to redeem their paper and fulfil their contracts. 
If they should not adopt this course, there will be time for the 
people to be informed that the paper of such institutions will 
not answer the demands of government, and that duties and 
taxes must be paid in the manner provided by law. 

I cannot say, indeed, that this measure will certainly produce 
the desired effect. It may fail. Its success, as is obvious, must 
essentially depend on the course pursued by the treasury depart- 
ment. But its tendency, I think, will be to produce good. It 
will, I hope, be a proof that Congress is not regardless of its 
duty. It will be evidence that this great subject has not passed 
without notice. It will record our determination to resist the 
introduction of a most destructive and miserable policy into our 
system ; and if there be any sanction or authority in the Consti- 
tution and the law, if there be any regard for justice and 
equality, if there be any care for the national revenue, or any 
concern for the public interest, let gentlemen consider whether 
they will relinquish their seat here before this or some other 
measure be adopted. 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE.* 


THE rise and progress of the revolution in Greece attracted great 
attention in the United States. Many obvious causes contributed to this 
effect, and their influence was seconded by the direct appeal made to 
the people of America, by the first political body organized in Greece 
after the breaking out of the revolution, viz. ‘‘’The Messenian Senate 
of Calamata.’’? A formal address was made by that body to the people 
of the United States, and forwarded by their committee (of which the 
celebrated Koray was chairman), to a friend and correspondent in this 
country. ‘This address was translated and widely circulated ; but it was 
not to be expected that any great degree of confidence should be at once 
generally felt in a movement undertaken against such formidable odds. 

The progress of events, however, in 1822 and 1823, was such as to 
create an impression that the revolution in Greece had a substantial 
foundation in the state of affairs, in the awakened spirit of that country, 
and in the condition of public opinion throughout Christendom. The 
interest felt in the struggle rapidly increased in the United States. Lo- 
cal committees were formed, animated appeals were made, and funds 
collected, with a view to the relief of the victims of the war. 

On the assembling of Congress, in December, 1823, President Mon- 
roe made the revolution in Greece the subject of a paragraph in his 
annual message, and on the 8th of December Mr. Webster moved the 
following resolution in the House of Representatives : — 

“ Resolved, ‘That provision ought to be made, by law, for defraying 
the expense incident to the appointment of an Agent or Commissioner 
to Greece, whenever the President shall deem it expedient to make such 
appointment.” 

These, it is believed, are the first official expressions favorable to the 
independence of Greece uttered by any of the governments of Christen- 
dom, and no doubt contributed powerfully towards the creation of that 
feeling throughout the civilized world which eventually led to the battle 


* A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, 
on the 19th of January, 1824. 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 61 


of Navarino, and the liberation of a portion of Greece from the Turkish 
yoke. 

The House of Representatives having, on the 19th of January, re- 
solves itself into a committee of the whole, and this resolution being 
taken into consideration, Mr. Webster spoke to the following effect. 


I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, so far as my part in this dis- 
cussion is concerned, those expectations which the public ex- 
citement existing on the subject, and certain associations easily 
suggested by it, have conspired to raise, may be disappointed, 
An occasion which calls the attention to a spot so distinguished, 
so connected with interesting recollections, as Greece, may natu- 
rally create something of warmth and enthusiasm. In a grave, 
political discussion, however, it is necessary that those feelings 
should be chastised. I shall endeavor properly to repress them, 
although it is impossible that they should be altogether extin- 
guished. We must, indeed, fly beyond the civilized world; we 
must pass the dominion of law and the boundaries of knowl- 
edge; we must, more especially, withdraw ourselves from this 
place, and the scenes and objects which here surround us,—if we 
would separate ourselves entirely from the influence of all those 
memorials of herself which ancient Greece has transmitted for 
the admiration and the benefit of mankind. ‘This free form of 
government, this popular assembly, the common council held for 
the common good,— where have we contemplated its earliest 
models? ‘This practice of free debate and public discussion, 
the contest of mind with mind, and that popular eloquence, 
which, if it were now here, on a subject like this, would move 
the stones of the Capitol,— whose was the language in which 
all these were first exhibited? Even the edifice in which we 
assemble, these proportioned columns, this ornamented archi- 
tecture, all remind us that Greece has existed, and that we, like 
the rest of mankind, are greatly her debtors.* 

But I have not introduced this motion in the vain hope of 
discharging any thing of this accumulated debt of centuries. I 
have not acted upon the expectation, that we, who have inher- 
ited this obligation from our ancestors, should now attempt to 
pay it to those who may seem to have inherited from their an- 


* The interior of the hall of the House of Representatives is surrounded by a 
magnificent calonnade of the composite order. 


VOL. III. 6 


62 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


cestors a right to receive payment. My object is nearer and 
more immediate. I wish to take occasion of the struggle of an 
interesting and gallant people, in the cause of liberty and Chris- 
tianity, to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances 
which have accompanied that struggle, and to the principles 
which appear to have governed the conduct of the great states 
of Europe in regard to it; and to the effects and consequences 
of these principles upon the independence of nations, and espe- 
cially upon the institutions of free governments. What I have 
to say of Greece, therefore, concerns the modern, not the ancient; 
the living, and not the dead. It regards her, not as she exists in 
history, triumphant over time, and tyranny, and ignorance; ‘but 
as she now is, contending, against fearful odds, for being, and 
for the common privileges of human nature. 

As it is never difficult to recite commonplace remarks and 
trite aphorisms, so it may be easy, I am aware, on this occa- 
sion, to remind me of the wisdom which dictates to men a care 
of their own affairs, and admonishes them, instead of searching 
for adventures abroad, to leave other men’s concerns in their 
own hands. It may be easy to call this resolution Quixotic, the 
emanation of a crusading or propagandist spirit. All this, and 
more, may be readily said; but all this, and more, will not be 
aliowed to fix a character upon this proceeding, until that is 
proved which it takes for granted. Let it first be shown, that 
in this question there is nothing which can affect the interest, 
the character, or the duty of this country. Let it be proved, that 
we are not called upon, by either of these considerations, to ex- 
press an opinion on the subject to which the resolution relates. 
Let this be proved, and then it will indeed be made out, that 
neither ought this resolution to pass, nor ought the subject of it 
to have been mentioned in the communication of the President 
to us. But, in my opinion, this cannot be shown. Jn my judg- 
ment, the subject is interesting to the people and the govern- 
ment of this country, and we are called upon, by considerations 
of great weight and moment, to express our opinions upon it. 
These considerations, I think, spring from a sense of our own 
duty, our character, and our own interest. I wish to treat the 
subject on such grounds, exclusively, as are truly American; but 
then, in considering it as an American question, I cannot forget 
the age in which we live, the prevailing spirit of the age, the in- 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 63 


teresting questions which agitate it, and our own peculiar rela- 
tion in regard to these interesting questions. Let this be, then, 
and as far as Lam concerned I hope it will be, purely an Ameri- 
ean discussion ; but let it embrace, nevertheless, every thing that 
fairly concerns America. Let it comprehend, not merely her 
present advantage, but her permanent interest, her elevated 
character as one of the free states of the world, and her duty 
towards those great principles which have hitherto maintained 
the relative independence of nations, and which have, more es- 
pecially, made her what she is. 

At the commencement of the session, the President, in the 
discharge of the high duties of his office, called our attention to 
the subject to which this resolution refers. “ A strong hope,” 
says that communication, “has been long entertained, founded 
on the heroic struggle of the Greeks, that they would succeed in 
their contest, and resume their equal station among the nations 
of the earth. It is believed that the whole civilized world takes 
a deep interest in their welfare. Although no power has de- 
clared in their favor, yet none, according to our information, has 
taken part against them. ‘Their cause and their name have 
protected them from dangers which might ere this have over- 
whelmed any other people. The ordinary calculations of inter- 
est, and of acquisition with a view to aggrandizement, which 
mingle so much in the transactions of nations, seem to have 
had no effect in regard to them. From the facts which have 
come to our knowledge, there is good cause to believe that their 
enemy has lost for ever all dominion over them; that Greece will 
become again an independent nation.” 

It has appeared to me that the House should adopt some 
resolution reciprocating these sentiments, so far as it shall ap- 
prove them. More than twenty years have elapsed since Con- 
gress first ceased to receive such a communication from the 
President as could properly be made the subject of a general an- 
swer. I do not mean to find fault with this relinquishment of a 
former and an ancient practice. It may have been attended 
with inconveniences which justified its abolition. But, certain- 
ly, there was one advantage belonging to it; and that is, that it 
furnished a fit opportunity for the expression of the opinion of 
the houses of Congress upon those topics in the executive com- 
munication which were not expected to be made the immediate 


64 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


subjects of direct legislation. Since, therefore, the President’s 
message does not now receive a general answer, it has seemed 
to me to be proper that, in some mode, agreeable to our own 
usual form of proceeding, we should express our sentiments 
upon the important and interesting topics on which it treats. 

If the sentiments of the message in respect to Greece be 
proper, it is equally proper that this House should reciprocate 
those sentiments. The present resolution is designed to have 
that extent,and no more. If it pass, it will leave any future 
proceeding where it now is, in the discretion of the executive gov- 
ernment. Jt is but an expression, under those forms in which 
the House is accustomed to act, of the satisfaction of the House 
with the general sentiments expressed in regard to this subject 
in the message, and of its readiness to defray the expense inci- 
dent to any inquiry for the purpose of further information, or 
any other agency which the President, in his discretion, shall see 
fit, in whatever manner and at whatever time, to institute. The 
whole matter is still left in his judgment, and this resolution can 
in no way restrain its unlimited exercise. 

I might well, Mr. Chairman, avoid the responsibility of this 
measure, if it had, in my judgment, any tendency to change the 
policy of the country. With the general course of that policy 
I am quite satisfied. 'The nation is prosperous, peaceful, and 
happy; and I should very reluctantly put its peace, prosperity, 
or happiness at risk. It appears to me, however, that this reso- 
lution is strictly conformable to our general policy, and not only 
consistent with our interests, but even demanded by a large and 
liberal view of those interests. 

It is certainly true that the just policy of this country is, in the 
first place, a peaceful policy. No nation ever had less to expect 
from forcible aggrandizement. 'The mighty agents which are 
working out our greatness are time, industry, and the arts. Our 
augmentation is by growth, not by acquisition; by internal de- 
velopment, not by external accession. No schemes can be sug- 
gested to us so magnificent as the prospects which a sober con- 
templation of our own condition, unaided by projects, uninflu- 
enced by ambition, fairly spreads before us. A country of such 
vast extent, with such varieties of soil and climate, with so much 
public spirit and private enterprise, with a population increasing 
so much beyond former example, with capacities of improve- 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 65 


ment not only unapplied or unexhausted, but even, in a great 
measure, as yet unexplored, —so free in its institutions, so mild 
in its laws, so secure in the title it confers on every man to his 
own acquisitions, — needs nothing but time and peace to carry 
it forward to almost any point of advancement. 

In the next place, I take it for granted that the policy of this 
country, springing from the nature of our government and the 
spirit of all our institutions, is, so far as it respects the interest- 
ing questions which agitate the present age, on the side of lib- 
eral and enlightened sentiments. The age is extraordinary; the 
spirit that actuates it is peculiar and marked; and our own re- 
lation to the times we live in, and to the questions which in- 
terest them, is equally marked and peculiar. We are placed, by 
our good fortune and the wisdom and valor of our ancestors, in 
a condition in which we can act no obscure part. Be it for 
honor, or be it for dishonor, whatever we do is sure to attract the 
observation of the world. As one of the free states among the 
nations, as a great; and rapidly rising republic, it would be im- 
possible for us, if we were so disposed, to prevent our principles, 
our sentiments, and our example from producing some effect 
upon the opinions and hopes of society throughout the civilized 
world. It rests probably with ourselves to determine whether 
the influence of these shall be salutary or pernicious. 

It cannot be denied that the great political question of this 
age is that between absolute and regulated governments. The 
substance of the controversy is whether society shall have any 
part in its own government. Whether the form of government 
shall be that of limited monarchy, with more or less mixture of 
hereditary power, or wholly elective or representative, may per- 
haps be considered as subordinate. ‘The main controversy is 
between that absolute rule, which, while it promises to govern 
well, means, nevertheless, to govern without control, and that 
constitutional system which restrains sovereign discretion, and 
asserts that society may claim as matter of right some effective 
power in the establishment of the laws which are to regulate it. 
The spirit of the times sets with a most powerful current in fa- 
vor of these last-mentioned opinions. It is opposed, however, 
whenever and wherever it shows itself, by certain of the great 
potentates of Europe; and it is opposed on grounds as appli- 


cable in one civilized nation as in another, and which would 
6* 


—. = 


ee 





Bb: THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


justify such opposition in relation to the United States, as well 
as in relation to any other state or nation, if time and circum- 
stances should render such opposition expedient. 

What part it becomes this country to take on a question of 
this sort, so far as it is called upon to take any part, cannot be 
doubtful. Our side of this question is settled for us, even with- 
out our own volition. Our history, our situation, our character, 
necessarily decide our position and our course, before we have 
even time to ask whether we have an option. Our place is on 
the side of free institutions. From the earliest settlement of 
these States, their inhabitants were accustomed, in a greater or 
less degree, to the enjoyment of the powers of self-government ; 
and for the last half-century they have sustained systems of gov- 
ernment entirely representative, yielding to themselves the great- 
est possible prosperity, and not leaving them without distinction 
and respect among the nations of the earth. This system we 
are not likely to abandon; and while we shall no farther recom 
mend its adoption to other nations, in whole or in part, than it 
may recommend itself by its visible influence on our own growth 
and prosperity, we are, nevertheless, interested to resist the es- 
tablishment of doctrines which deny the legality of its founda- 
tions. We stand as an equal among nations, claiming the full 
benefit of the established international law; and it is our duty 
to oppose, from the earliest to the latest moment, any innova- 
tions upon that code which shall bring into doubt or question 
our own equal and independent rights. | 

I will now, Mr. Chairman, advert to those pretensions put 
forth by the allied sovereigns of Continental Europe, which seem 
to me calculated, if unresisted, to bring into disrepute the prin- 
ciples of our government, and, indeed, to be wholly incompatible 
with any degree of national independence. I do not introduce 
these considerations for the sake of topics. Iam not about to 
declaim against crowned heads, nor to quarrel with any country 
for preferring a form of government different from our own. 
The right of choice that we exercise for ourselves, [am quite 
willing to leave also to others. But it appears to me that the 
pretensions to which I have alluded are wholly inconsistent with 
the independence of nations generally, without regard to the 
question whether their governments be absolute, monarchical 
and limited, or purely popular and representative. I have a 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 67 


most deep and thorough conviction, that a new era has arisen 
in the world, that new and dangerous combinations are taking 
place, promulgating doctrines and fraught with consequences 
wholly subversive in their tendency of the public law of nations 
and of the general liberties of mankind. Whether this be so, or 
not, is the question which I now propose to examine, upon such 
grounds of information as are afforded by the common and pub- 
lie means of knowledge. 

Every body knows that, since the final restoration of the 
Bourbons to the throne of France, the Continental powers have 
entered into sundry alliances, which have been made public, and 
have held several meetings or congresses, at which the principles 
of their political conduct have been declared. ‘These things 
must necessarily have an effect upon the international law of 
the states of the world. If that effect be good, and according to 
the principles of that law, they deserve to be applauded. If, on 
the contrary, their effect and tendency be most dangerous, their 
principles wholly inadmissible, their pretensions such as would 
abolish every degree of national independence, then they are to 
be resisted. 

I begin, Mr. Chairman, by drawing your attention to the 
treaty concluded at Paris in September, 1815, between Russia, 
Prussia, and Austria, commonly called the Holy Alliance. ‘This 
singular alliance appears to have originated with the Emperor 
of Russia; for we are informed that a draft of it was exhibited 
by him, personally, to a plenipotentiary of one of the great pow- 
ers of Europe, before it was presented to the other sovereigns 
who ultimately signed it.* This instrument professes nothing, 
certainly, which is not extremely commendable and _ praisewor- 
thy. It promises only that the contracting parties, both in rela- 
tion to other states, and in regard to their own subjects, will 
observe the rules of justice and Christianity. In confirmation 
of these promises, it makes the most solemn and devout religious 
invocations. Now, although such an alliance is a novelty in 
Kuropean history, the world seems to have received this treaty, 
upon its first promulgation, with general charity. It was com- 
monly understood as little or nothing more than an expression 


* See Lord Castlereagh’s speech in the House of Commons, February 3, 1816. 
Debates in Parliament, Vol. XXXVI. p. 355; where also the treaty may be 
found at length. 





68 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


of thanks for the successful termination of the momentous con- 
test in which those sovereigns had been engaged. It still seems 
somewhat unaccountable, however, that these good resolutions 
should require to be confirmed by treaty. Who doubted that 
these august sovereigns would treat each other with justice, and 
rule their own subjects in mercy? And what necessity was 
there for a solemn stipulation by treaty, to insure the perform- 
ance of that which is no more than the ordinary duty of every 
government? It would hardly be admitted by these sovereigns, 
that by this compact they consider themselves bound to intro- 
duce an entire change, or any change, in the course of their own 
conduct. Nothing substantially new, certainly, can be supposed 
to have been intended. What principle, or what practice, there- 
fore, called for this solemn declaration of the intention of the 
parties to observe the rules ‘of religion and justice ? 

It is not a little remarkable, that a writer of reputation upon 
the Public Law, described, many years ago, not inaccurately, 
the character of this alliance. I allude to Puffendorf. “It seems 
useless,” says he, “to frame any pacts or leagues, barely for the 
defence and support of universal peace; for by such a league 
nothing is superadded to the obligation of natural law, and no 
agreement is made for the performance of any thing which the 
parties were not previously bound to perform; nor is the origi- 
nal obligation rendered firmer or stronger by such an addition. 
Men of any tolerable culture and civilization might well be 
ashamed of entering into any such compact, the conditions of 
which imply only that the parties concerned shall not offend in 
any clear point of duty. Besides, we should be guilty of great 
irreverence towards God, should we suppose that his injunctions 
had not already laid a sufficient obligation upon us to act justly, 
unless we ourselves voluntarily consented to the same engage- 
ment; as if our obligation to obey his will depended upon our 
own pleasure. 

“ If one engage to serve another, he does not set it down ex- 
pressly and particularly among the terms and conditions of the 
bargain, that he will not betray nor murder him, nor pillage nor 
burn his house. For the same reason, that would be a dishonor- 
able engagement, in which men should bind themselves to act 
properly and decently, and not break the peace.” * 


* Law of Nature and Nations, Book IL. cap. 2, § 11. 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 69 


Such were the sentiments of that eminent writer. How 
nearly he had anticipated the case of the Holy Alliance will 
appear from the preamble to that alliance. After stating that 
the allied sovereigns had become persuaded, by the events of the 
last three years, that “their relations with each other ought to be 
regulated exclusively by the sublime truths taught by the eternal 
religion of God the Saviour,’ they solemnly declare their fixed 
resolution “to adopt as the sole rule of their conduct, both in the 
administration of their respective states, and in their political 
relations with every other government, the precepts of that holy 
religion, namely, the precepts of justice, charity, and peace, 
which, far from being applicable to private life alone, ought, 
on the contrary, to have a direct influence upon the counsels of 
princes, and guide all their steps, as being the only means of 
consolidating human institutions, and remedying their imper- 
fections.” * 

This measure, however, appears principally important, as it 
was the first of a series, and was followed afterwards by others 
of a more marked and practical nature. ‘These measures, taken 
together, profess to establish two principles, which the Allied 
Powers would introduce as a part of the law of the civilized 
world; and the establishment of which is to be enforced by a 
million and a half of bayonets. 

The first of these principles is, that all popular or constitutional 
rights are held no otherwise than as grants from the crown. 
Society, upon this principle, has no rights of its own; it takes 
good government, when it gets it, as a boon and a concession, 
but can demand nothing. It is to live by that favor which ema- 
nates from royal authority, and if it have the misfortune to lose 
that favor, there is nothing to protect it against any degree of 
injustice and oppression. It can rightfully make no endeavor 
for a change, by itself; its whole privilege is to receive the favors 
that may be dispensed by the sovereign power, and all its duty 
is described in the single word submission. 'This is the plain 
result of the principal Continental state papers; indeed, it is 
nearly the identical text of some of them. 

The circular despatch addressed by the sovereigns assembled 
at Laybach, in the spring of 1821, to their ministers at foreign 
courts, alleges, “that useful and necessary changes in legislation 


* Martens, Recueil des Traités, Tome XIII. p. 656. 





70 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


and in the administration of states ought only to emanate from 
the free will and intelligent and well-weighed conviction of 
those whom God has rendered responsible for power. All that 
deviates from this line necessarily leads to disorder, commotions, 
and evils far more insufferable than those which they pretend to 
remedy.” * Now, Sir, this principle would carry Europe back 
again, at once, into the middle of the Dark Ages. It is the old 
doctrine of the Divine right of kings, advanced now by new 
advocates, and sustained by a formidable array of power. ‘That 
the people hold their fundamental privileges as matter of con- 
cession or indulgence from the sovereign power, is a sentiment 
not easy to be diffused in this age, any farther than it is enforced 
by the direct operation of military means. It is true, certainly, 
that some six centuries ago the early founders of English lib- 
erty called the instrument which secured their rights a charter. 
It was, indeed, a concession; they had obtained it sword in 
hand from the king; and in many other cases, whatever was ob- 
tained, favorable to human rights, from the tyranny and despot- 
ism of the feudal sovereigns, was called by the names of privt- 
leges and liberties, as being matter of special favor. Though 
we retain this language at the present time, the principle itself 
belongs to ages that have long passed by us. The civilized 
world has done with “the enormous faith, of many made for 
one.” Society asserts its own rights, and alleges them to be 
original, sacred, and unalienable. It is not satisfied with haying 
kind masters; it demands a participation in its own govern- 
ment; and in states much advanced in civilization, it urges this 
demand with a constancy and an energy that cannot well nor 
long be resisted. There are, happily, enough of regulated goy- 
ernments in the world, and those among the most distinguished, 
to operate as constant examples, and to keep alive an unceasing 
panting in the bosoms of men for the enjoyment of similar free 
institutions. 

When the English Revolution of 1688 took place, the Eng- 
lish people did not content themselves with the example of 
Runnymede; they did not build their hopes upon royal charters ; 
they did not, like the authors of the Laybach circular, suppose 
that all useful changes in constitutions and laws must proceed 
from those only whom God has rendered responsible for power. 


* Annual Register for 1821, p. 601. 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. v 


They were somewhat better instructed in the principles of civil 
liberty, or at least they were better lovers of those principles 
than the sovereigns of Laybach. Instead of petitioning for 
charters, they declared their rights, and while they offered to the 
Prince of Orange the crown with one hand, they held in the 
other an enumeration of those privileges which they did not 
profess to hold as favors, but which they demanded and insisted 
upon as their undoubted rights. 

I need not stop to observe, Mr. Chairman, how totally hostile 
are these doctrines of Laybach to the fundamental principles of 
our government. They are in direct contradiction; the princt- 
ples of good and evil are hardly more opposite. If these prin- 
eiples of the sovereigns be true, we are but in a state of rebel- 
lion or of anarchy, and are only tolerated among civilized states 
because it has not yet been convenient to reduce us to the true 
standard. 

But the second, and, if possible, the still more objectionable 
principle, avowed in these papers, is the right of forcible inter- 
ference in the affairs of other states. A right to control nations 
in their desire to change their own government, wherever it may 
be conjectured, or pretended, that such change might furnish an 
example to the subjects of other states, is plainly and distinctly 
asserted. ‘lhe same Congress that made the deciaration at 
Laybach had declared, before its removal from Troppau, “that 
the powers have an undoubted right to take a hostile attitude in 
regard to those states in which the overthrow of the government 
may operate as an example.” 

There cannot, as I think, be conceived a more flagrant viola- 
tion of public law, or national independence, than is contained 
in this short declaration. 

No matter what be the character of the government resisted ; 
no matter with what weight the foot of the oppressor bears on 
the neck of the oppressed; if he struggle, or if he complain, he 
sets a dangerous example of resistance, —and from that mo- 
ment he becomes an object of hostility to the most powerful 
potentates of the earth. I want words to express my abhorrence 
of this abominable principle. I trust every enlightened man 
throughout the world will oppose it, and that, especially, those 
who, like ourselves, are fortunately out of the reach of the bay- 
onets that enforce it, will proclaim their detestation of it, in a 





72 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


tone both loud and decisive. The avowed object of such decla- 
rations is to preserve the peace of the world. But-by what 
means is it proposed to preserve this peace? Simply, by bring- 
ing the power of all governments to bear against all subjects. 
Here is to be established a sort of double, or treble, or quadru- 
ple, or, for aught I know, quintuple allegiance. An offence 
against one king is to be an offence against all kings, and the 
power of all is to be put forth for the punishment of the offend- 
er. A right to interfere in extreme cases, in the case of contig 
uous states, and where imminent danger is threatened to one 
by what is occurring in another, is not without precedent in 
modern times, upon what has been called the law of vicinage; 
and when confined to extreme cases, and limited to a certain 
extent, it may perhaps be defended upon principles of neces- 
sity and self-defence. But to maintain that sovereigns may 
go to war upon the subjects of another state to repress an exam- 
ple, is monstrous indeed. What is to be the limit to such a 
principle, or to the practice growing out of it? What, in any 
case, but sovereign pleasure, is to decide whether the example be 
good or bad? And what, under the operation of such a rule, 
may be thought of our example? Why are we not as fair 
objects for the operation of the new principle, as any of those 
who may attempt a reform of government on the other side of 
the Atlantic? 

The ultimate effect of this alliance of sovereigns, for objects 
personal to themselves, or respecting only the permanence of 
their own power, must be the destruction of all just feeling, and 
all natural sympathy, between those who exercise the power of 
government and those who are subject to it. The old channels 
of mutual regard and confidence are to be dried up, or cut off. 
Obedience can now be expected no longer than it is enforced. 
Instead of relying on the affections of the governed, sovereigns 
are to rely on the affections and friendship of other sovereigns. 
There are, in short, no longer to be nations. Princes and people 
are no longer to unite for interests common to them both. There 
is to be an end of all patriotism, as a distinct national feeling. 
Society is to be divided horizontally; all sovereigns above, and 
all subjects below; the former coalescing for their own security, 
and for the more certain subjection of the undistinguished mul- 
titude beneath. This, Sir, is no picture drawn by imagination. 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 73 


Ihave hardly used language stronger than that in which the 
authors of this new system have commented on their own work. 
M. de Chateaubriand, in his speech in the French Chamber of 
Deputies, in February last, declared, that he had a conference 
with the Emperor of Russia at Verona, in which that august 
sovereign uttered sentiments which appeared to him so precious, 
that he immediately hastened home, and wrote them down while 
yet fresh in his recollection. “'The Emperor declared,” said he, 
“that there can no longer be such a thing as an English, French, 
Russian, Prussian, or Austrian policy; there is henceforth but 
one policy, which, for the safety of all, should be adopted both 
by people and kings. It was for me first to show myself con- 
vinced of the principles upon which I founded the alliance; an 
occasion offered itself, — the rising in Greece. Nothing certainly 
could occur more for my interests, for the interests of my peo- 
ple; nothing more acceptable to my country, than a religious 
war in ‘Turkey. But I have thought I perceived in the troubles 
of the Morea the sign of revolution, and I have held back. 
Providence has not put under my command eight hundred 
thousand soldiers to satisfy my ambition, but to protect relig- 
ion, morality, and justice, and to secure the prevalence of those 
principles of order on which human society rests. It may well 
be permitted, that kings may have public alliances to defend 
themselves against secret enemies.” 

These, Sir, are the words which the French minister thought 
so important that they deserved to, be recorded; and I, too, 
Sir, am of the same opinion. But if it be true that there is 
hereafter to be neither a Russian policy, nor a Prussian policy, 
nor an Austrian policy, nor a French policy, nor even, which yet 
I will not believe, an English policy, there will be, I trust in 
God, an American policy. If the authority of all these govern- 
ments be hereafter to be mixed and blended, and to flow, in one 
augmented current of prerogative, over the face of Europe, 
sweeping away all resistance in its course, it will yet remain for 
us to secure our own happiness by the preservation of our own 
principles; which I hope we shall have the manliness to express 
on all proper occasions, and the spirit to defend in every extrem- 
ity. ‘The end and scope of this amalgamated policy are neither 
more nor less than this, to interfere, by force, for any govern- 
ment, against any people who may resist it. Be the state of the 

VOL. III. 


74 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


people what it may, they shall not rise; be the government 
what it will, it shall not be opposed. 

The practical commentary has corresponded with the plain 
language of the text. Look at Spain, and at Greece. If men 
may not resist the Spanish Inquisition, and the ‘Turkish cimeter, 
what is there to which humanity must not submit? Stronger 
cases can never arise. Is it not proper for us, at all times, is it 
not our duty, at this time, to come forth, and deny, and con- 
demn, these monstrous principles? Where, but here, and in one 
other place, are they likely to be resisted? ‘They are advanced 
with equal coolness and boldness; and they are supported by 
immense power. ‘The timid will shrink and give way, and many 
of the brave may be compelled to yield to force. Human liberty 
may yet, perhaps, be obliged to repose its principal hopes on the 
intelligence and the vigor of the Saxon race. As far as depends 
on us, at least, I trust those hopes will not be disappointed; and 
that, to the extent which may consist with our own settled, pa- 
cific policy, our opinions and sentiments may be brought to act 
on the right side, and to the right end, on an occasion which is, 
in truth, nothing less than a momentous question between an 
intelligent age, full of knowledge, thirsting for improvement, 
and quickened by a thousand impulses, on one side, and the 
most arbitrary pretensions, sustained by unprecedented power, 
on the other. 

This asserted right of forcible intervention in the affairs of 
other nations is in open violation of the public law of the world. 
Who has authorized these learned doctors of 'Troppau to estab- 
lish new articles in this code? Whence are their diplomas? Is 
the whole world expected to acquiesce in principles which en- 
tirely subvert the independence of nations? On the basis of 
this independence has been reared the beautiful fabric of inter- 
national law. On the principle of this independence, Europe 
has seen a family of nations flourishing within its limits, the 
small among the large, protected not always by power, but by a 
principle above power, by a sense of propriety and justice. On 
this principle, the great commonwealth of civilized states has 
been hitherto upheld. There have been occasional departures 
or violations, and always disastrous, as in the case of Poland; 
but, in general, the harmony of the system has been wonderfully 
preserved. In the production and preservation of this sense of. 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 75 


justice, this predominating principle, the Christian religion has 
acted a main part. Christianity and civilization have labored 
together; it seems, indeed, to be a law of our human condition, 
that they can live and flourish only together. From their blend- 
ed influence has arisen that delightful spectacle of the prevalence 
of reason and principle over power and interest, so well described 
by one who was an honor to the age; — 


** And sovereign Law, the state’s collected will, 
O’er thrones and globes elate, 
Sits empress, — crowning good, repressing ill: 
Smit by her sacred frown, 
The fiend, Discretion, like a vapor, sinks, 
And e’en the all-dazzling crown 
Hides his faint rays, and at her bidding shrinks.” 


But this vision is past. While the teachers of Laybach give 
the rule, there will be no law but the law of the strongest. 

It may now be required of me to show what interest we have 
in resisting this new system. What is it to us, it may be asked, 
upon what principles, or what pretences, the European govern- 
ments assert a right of interfering in the affairs of their neigh- 
bors? ‘The thunder, it may be said, rolls at a distance. ‘The 
wide Atlantic is between us and danger; and, however others 
may suffer, we shall remain safe. 

I think it is a sufficient answer to this to say, that we are one 
of the nations of the earth; that we have an interest, therefore, 
in the preservation of that system of national law and national 
intercourse which has heretofore subsisted, so beneficially for all. 
Our system of government, it should also be remembered, is, 
throughout, founded on principles utterly hostile to the new 
code; and if we remain undisturbed by its operation, we shall 
owe our security either to our situation or our spirit. ‘The en- 
terprising character of the age, our own active, commercial spirit, 
the great increase which has taken place in the intercourse 
among civilized and commercial states, have necessarily con- 
nected us with other nations, and given us a high concern in the 
preservation of those salutary principles upon which that inter- 
course is founded. We have as clear an interest in international 
law, as individuals have in the laws of society. 

But apart from the soundness of the policy, on the ground 
of direct interest, we have, Sir, a duty connected with this 





76 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


subject, which I trust we are willing to perform. What do we 
not owe to the cause of civil and religious liberty? to the prin- 
ciple of lawful resistance? to the principle that society has a 
right to partake in its own government? As the leading re- 
public of the world, living and breathing in these principles, and 
advanced, by their operation, with unequalled rapidity in our 
career, shall we give our consent to bring them into disrepute 
and disgrace? It is neither ostentation nor boasting to say, 
that there lies before this country, in immediate prospect, a great 
extent and height of power. We are borne along towards this, 
without effort, and not always even with a full knowledge of the 
rapidity of our own motion. Circumstances which never com- 
bined before have codperated in our favor, and a mighty current 
is setting us forward which we could not resist even if we would, 
and which, while we would stop to make an observation, and 
take the sun, has set us, at the end of the operation, far in ad- 
vance of the place where we commenced it. Does it not be- 
come us, then, is it not a duty imposed on us, to give our weight 
to the side of liberty and justice, to let mankind know that we 
are not tired of our own institutions, and to protest against the 
asserted power of altering at pleasure the law of the civilized 
world ? 

But whatever we do in this respect, it becomes us to do upon 
clear and consistent principles. ‘There is an important topic in 
the message to which I have yet hardly alluded. I mean the 
rumored combination of the European Continental sovereigns 
against the newly established free states of South America. 
Whatever position this government may take on that subject, I 
trust it will be one which can be defended on known and ac- 
knowledged grounds of right. ‘The near approach or the remote 
distance of danger may aflect policy, but cannot change princi- 
ple. The same reason that would authorize us to protest against 
unwarrantable combinations to interfere between Spain and her 
former colonies, would authorize us equally to protest, if the 
same combination were directed against the smallest state in 
Europe, although our duty to ourselves, our policy, and wisdom, 
might indicate very different courses as fit to be pursued by us 
in the two cases. We shall not, I trust, act upon the notion of 
dividing the world with the Holy Alliance, and complain of 
nothing done by them in their hemisphere if they will not inter- 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. te 


fere with ours. “At least this would not be such a course of 
policy as I could recommend or support. We have not offended, 
and I hope we do not intend to offend, in regard to South 
America, against any principle of national independence or of 
public law. We have done nothing, we shall do nothing, that 
we need to hush up or to compromise by forbearing to ex- 
press our sympathy for the cause of the Greeks, or our opinion 
of the course which other governments have adopted in regard 
to them. 

It may, in the next place, be asked, perhaps, Supposing all this 
to be true, what can we do? Are we to go to war? Are we 
to interfere in the Greek cause, or any other European cause ? 
Are we to endanger our pacific relations? No, certainly not. 
What, then, the question recurs, remains for us? If we will not 
endanger our own peace, if we will neither furnish armies nor 
navies to the cause which we think the just one, what is there 
Within our power ? , 

Sir, this reasoning mistakes the age. The time has been, in- 
deed, when fleets, and armies, and subsidies, were the principal 
reliances even in the best cause. But, happily for mankind, 
a great change has taken place in this respect. Moral causes 
come into consideration, in proportion as the progress of knowl- 
edge is advanced; and the public opinion of the civilized world 
is rapidly gaining an ascendency over mere brutal force. It+is 
already able to oppose the most formidable obstruction to the 
progress of injustice and oppression; and as it grows more in- 
telligent and more intense, it will be more and more formidable. 
It may be silenced by military power, but it cannot be con- 
quered. It is elastic, irrepressible, and invulnerable to the weap- 
ons of ordinary warfare. It is that impassible, unextinguishable 
enemy of mere violence and arbitrary rule, which, like Milton’s 
angels, 

‘¢ Vital in every part, ...... 
Cannot, but by annihilating, die.’’ 


Until this be propitiated or satisfied, it is vain for power te 
taik either of triumphs or of repose. No matter what fields are 
desolated, what fortresses surrendered, what armies subdued, or 
what provinces overrun. In the history of the year that has 
passed by us, and in the instance of unhappy Spain, we have 


seen the vanity of all triumphs in a cause which violates the 
TNs 


78 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


general sense of justice of the civilized world. It is nothing, 
that the troops of France have passed from the Pyrenees to 
Cadiz; it is nothing that an unhappy and prostrate nation has 
fallen before them; it is nothing that arrests, and confiscation, 
and execution, sweep away the little remnant of national resist- 
ance. ‘There is an enemy that still exists to check the glory of 
these triumphs. It follows the conqueror back to the very scene 
of his ovations; it calls upon him to take notice that Europe, 
though silent, is yet indignant; it shows him that the sceptre of 
his victory is a barren sceptre; that it shall confer neither joy 
nor honor, but shall moulder to dry ashes in his grasp. In 
the midst of his exultation, it pierces his ear with the cry of 
injured justice; it denounces against him the indignation of 
an enlightened and civilized age; it turns to bitterness the 
cup of his rejoicing, and wounds him with the sting which be- 
longs to the consciousness of having outraged the opinion of 
mankind. 

In my opinion, Sir, the Spanish nation is now nearer, not 
only in point of time, but in point of circumstance, to the ac- 
quisition of a regulated government, than at the moment of 
the French invasion. Nations must, no doubt, undergo these 
trials in their progress to the establishment of free institu- 
tions. The very trials benefit them, and render them more 
capable both of obtaining and of enjoying the object which 
they seek. | 

I shall not detain the committee, Sir, by laying before it any 
statistical, geographical, or commercial, account of Greece. I 
have no knowledge on these subjects which is not common to 
all. It is universally admitted, that, within the last thirty or 
forty years, the condition of Greece has been greatly improved. 
Her marine is at present respectable, containing the best sailors 
in the Mediterranean, better even, in that sea, than our own, as 
more accustomed to the long quarantines and other regulations 
which prevail in its ports. ‘The number of her seamen has been 
estimated as high as 50,000, but | suppose that estimate must 
be much too large. She has, probably, 150,000 tons of ship- 
ping. It is not easy to ascertain the amount of the Greek 
population. The ‘Turkish government does not trouble itself 
with any of the calculations of political economy, and there has 
never been such a thing as an accurate census, probably, in any 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 79 


part of the Turkish empire. In the absence of all official infor- 
mation, private opinions widely differ. By the tables which 
have been communicated, it yvould seem that there are 2,400,000 
Greeks in Greece proper and the islands; an amount, as | am 
inclined to think, somewhat overrated. ‘There are, probably, in 
the whole of European 'Turkey, 5,000,000 Greeks, and 2,000,000 
more in the Asiatic dominions of that power. 

-'The moral and intellectual progress of this numerous popula- 
tion, under the horrible oppression which crushes it, has been 
such as may well excite regard. Slaves, under barbarous mas- 
ters, the Greeks have still aspired after the blessings of knowl- 
edge and civilization. Before the breaking out of the present 
revolution, they had established schools, and colleges, and libra- 
ries, and the press. Wherever, as in Scio, owing to particular 
circumstances, the weight of oppression was mitigated, the nat- 
ural vivacity of the Greeks, and their aptitude for the arts, were 
evinced. ‘Though certainly not on an equality with the civil- 
ized and Christian states of Kurope,— and how is it possible, 
under such oppression as they endured, that they should be ? — 
they yet furnished a striking contrast with their ‘Tartar masters. 
It has been well said, that it is not easy to form a just concep- 
tion of the nature of the despotism exercised over them. Con- 
quest and subjugation, as known among [European states, are 
inadequate modes of expression by which to denote the domin- 
ion of the Turks. A conquest in the civilized world is generally 
no more than an acquisition of a new dominion to the conquer- 
ing country. It does not imply a never-ending bondage imposed 
upon the conquered, a perpetual mark, — an opprobrious distine- 
tion between them and their masters; a bitter and unending 
persecution of their religion; an habitual violation of their rights 
of person and property, and the unrestrained indulgence towards 
them of every passion which belongs to the character of a bar- 
barous soldiery. Yet such is the state of Greece. The Otto- 
man power over them, obtained originally by the sword, is 
constantly preserved by the same means. Wherever it exists, it 
is a mere military power. The religious and ‘civil code of the 
state being both fixed in the Koran, and equally the object of 
an ignorant and furious faith, have been found equally incapable 
of change. “The Turk,” it has been said, “has been encamped 
in Europe for four centuries.” He has hardly any more partici- 


80 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


pation in European manners, knowledge, and arts, than when 
he crossed the Bosphorus. But this is not the worst. The 
power of the empire is fallen into anarchy, and as the principle 
which belongs to the head belongs also to the parts, there are as 
many despots as there are pachas, beys, and viziers. Wars are 
almost perpetual between the Sultan and some rebellious goy- 
ernor of a province; and in the conflict of these despotisms, the 
people are necessarily ground between the upper and the nether 
millstone. In short, the Christian subjects of the Sublime Porte 
feel daily all the miseries which flow from despotism, from an- 
archy, from slavery, and from religious persecution.. If any 
thing yet remains to heighten such a picture, let it be added, 
that every office in the government is not only actually, but pro- 
fessedly, venal; the pachalics, the vizierates, the cadiships, and 
whatsoever other denomination may denote the depositary of 
power. In the whole world, Sir, there is no such oppression 
felt as by the Christian Greeks. In various parts of India, to 
be sure, the government is bad enough; but then it is the gov- 
ernment of barbarians over barbarians, and the feeling of oppres- 
sion is, of course, not so keen. ‘There the oppressed are perhaps 
not better than their oppressors; but in the case of Greece, there 
are millions of Christian men, not without knowledge, not with- 
out refinement, not without a strong thirst for all the pleasures 
of civilized life, trampled into the very earth, century after cen- 
tury, by a pillaging, savage, relentless soldiery. Sir, the case is 
unique. ‘here exists, and has existed, nothing like it. The 
world has no such misery to show; there is no case in which 
Christian communities can be called upon with such emphasis 
of appeal. 

But I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, indeed I need have 
said nothing, to satisfy the House, that it must be some new 
combination of circumstances, or new views of policy in the cab- 
inets of Kurope, which have caused this interesting struggle not 
merely to be regarded with indifference, but to be marked with 
opprobrium. ‘The very statement of the case, as a contest be- 
tween the Turks and Greeks, sufficiently indicates what must be 
the feeling of every individual, and every government, that is 
not pte by a particular interest, or a particular feeling, te 
disregard the dictates of justice and humanity. 

ae now, Sir, what has been the conduct pursued by the Al- 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 81 


lied Powers in regard to this contest? ‘When the revolution 
broke out, the sovereigns were assembled in congress at Lay- 
bach; and the papers of that assembly sufliciently manifest 
their sentiments. ‘They proclaimed their abhorrence of those 
“criminal combinations which had been formed in the east- 
ern parts of Europe”; and, although it is possible that this 
denunciation was aimed, more particularly, at the disturbances 
in the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, yet no exception is 
made, from its general terms, in favor of those events in Greece 
which were properly the commencement of her revolution, and 
which could not but be well known at Laybach, before the date 
of these declarations. Now it must be remembered, that Rus- 
sia was a leading party in this denunciation of the efforts of the 
Greeks to achieve their liberation ; and it cannot but be expected 
by Russia, that the world should also remember what part she 
herself has heretofore acted in the same concern. It is notori- 
ous, that within the last half-century she has again and again 
excited the Greeks to rebellion against the Porte, and that she 
has constantly kept alive in them the hope that she would, one 
day, by her own great power, break the yoke of their oppressor. 
Indeed, the earnest attention with which Russia has regarded 
Greece goes much farther back than to the time I have men- 
tioned. Ivan the Third, in 1482, having espoused a Grecian 
princess, heiress of the last Greek Emperor, discarded St. George 
from the Russian arms, and adopted the Greek two-headed 
black eagle, which has continued in the Russian arms to the 
present day. In virtue of the same marriage, the Russian prin- 
ces claim the Greek throne as their inheritance. 

Under Peter the Great, the policy of Russia developed itself 
more fully. In 1696, he rendered himself master of Azof, and 
in 1698, obtained the right to pass the Dardanelles, and to main- 
tain, by that route, commercial intercourse with the Mediter- 
ranean. He had emissaries thronghout Greece, and particularly 
applied himself to gain the clergy. He adopted the Labarum 
of Constantine, “ In hoe signo vinces” ; and medals were struck, 
with the inscription, “ Petrus I. Russo-Graecorum Imperator.” 
In whatever new direction the principles of the Holy Alliance 
may now lead the politics of Russia, or whatever course she 
may suppose Christianity now prescribes to her, in regard to the 
Greek cause, the time has been when she professed to be con- 


82 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


tending for that cause, as identified with Christianity. The 
white banner under which the soldiers of Peter the First usually 
fought, bore, as its inscription, “In the name of the Prince, and 
for our country.” Relying on the aid of the Greeks, in his war 
with the Porte, he changed the white flag to red, and displayed 
on it the words, “In the name of God, and for Christianity.” 
The unfortunate issue of this war is well known. ‘Though 
Anne and Elizabeth, the successors of Peter, did not possess 
his active character, they kept up a constant communication 
with Greece, and held out hopes of restoring the Greek empire. 
Catharine the Second, as is well known, excited a general revolt 
in 1769. <A Russian fleet appeared in the Mediterranean, and a 
Russian army was landed in the Morea. The Greeks in the 
end were disgusted at being expected to take an oath of alle- 
giance to Russia, and the Empress was disgusted because they 
refused to take it. In 1774, peace was signed between Russia 
and the Porte, and the Greeks of the Morea were left to their 
fate. By this treaty the Porte acknowledged the independence 
of the khan of the Crimea; a preliminary step to the acquisition 
of that country by Russia. It is not unworthy of remark, as a 
circumstance which distinguished this from most other diplo- 
matic transactions, that it conceded to the cabinet of St. Peters- 
burg the right of intervention in the interior affairs of ‘Turkey, 
in regard to whatever concerned the religion of the Greeks. 
The cruelties and massacres that happened to the Greeks after 
the peace between Russia and the Porte, notwithstanding the 
general pardon which had been stipulated for them, need not 
now be recited. Instead of retracing the deplorable picture, it is 
enough to say, that in this respect the past is justly reflected in 
the present. ‘The Empress soon after invaded and conquered the 
Crimea, and on one of the gates of Kerson, its capital, caused to 
be inscribed, “ The road to Byzantium.” ‘The present Emperor, 
on his accession to the throne, manifested an intention to adopt 
the policy of Catharine the Second as his own, and the world 
has not been right in all its suspicions, if a project for the parti- 
tion of Turkey did not form a part of the negotiations of Napo- 
leon and Alexander at Tilsit. 
All this course of policy seems suddenly to be changed. 'Tur- 
key is no longer regarded, it would appear, as an object of parti- 
tion or acquisition, and Greek revolts have al] at once become 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 83 


according to the declaration of Laybach, “criminal combina- 
tions.” ‘The recent congress at Verona exceeded its predeces- 
sor at Laybach in its denunciations of the Greek struggle. In 
the circular of the 14th of December, 1822, it declared the Gre- 
cian resistance to the Turkish power to be rash and culpable, 
and lamented that “the firebrand of rebellion had been thrown 
into the Ottoman empire.” ‘This rebuke and crimination we 
know to have proceeded on those settled principles of conduct 
which the Continental powers had prescribed for themselves. 
‘The sovereigns saw, as well as others, the real condition of the 
Greeks; they knew as well as others that it was most natural 
and most justifiable, that they should endeavor, at whatever 
hazard, to change that condition. They knew that they them- 
selves, or at least one of them, had more than once urged the 
Greeks to similar efforts; that they themselves had thrown the 
same firebrand into the midst of the Ottoman empire. And 
yet, so much does it seem to be their fixed object to discounte- 
nance whatsoever threatens to disturb the actual government of 
any country, that, Christians as they were, and allied, as they 
professed to be, for purposes most important to human happi- 
ness and religion, they have not hesitated to declare to the 
world that they have wholly forborne to exercise any compas- 
sion to the Greeks, simply because they thought that they saw, 
in the struggles of the Morea, the sign of revolution. ‘This, 
then, is coming to a plain, practical result. ‘The Grecian revo- 
lution has been discouraged, discountenanced, and denounced, 
solely because it 7s a revolution. Independent of all inquiry into 
the reasonableness of its causes or the enormity of the oppres- 
sion which produced it; regardless of the peculiar claims which 
Greece possesses upon the civilized world; and regardless of 
what has been their own conduct towards her for a century; re- 
gardless of the interest of the Christian religion, —the sover- 
eigns at Verona seized upon the case of the Greek revolution 
as one above all others calculated to illustrate the fixed princi- 
ples of their policy. ‘The abominable rule of the Porte on one 
side, the value and the sufferings of the Christian Greeks on the 
other, furnished a case likely to convince even an incredulous 
world of the sincerity of the professions of the Allied Powers. 
They embraced the occasion with apparent ardor: and the 
world, I trust, is satisfied. 


84. THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


We see here, Mr. Chairman, the direct and actual application 
of that system which I have attempted to describe. We see it 
in the very case of Greece. We learn, authentically and indis- 
putably, that the Allied Powers, holding that all changes in leg- 
islation and administration ought to proceed from kings alone, 
were wholly inexorable to the sufferings of the Greeks, and en- 
tirely hostile to their success. Now it is upon this practical re- 
sult of the principle of the Continental powers that I wish this 
House to intimate its opinion. The great question is a question 
of principle. Greece is only the signal instance of the applica- 
tion of that principle. If the principle be right, if we esteem it 
conformable to the law of nations, if we have nothing to say 
against it, or if we deem ourselves unfit to express an opinion 
on the subject, then, of course, no resolution ought to pass. If, 
on the other hand, we see in the declarations of the Allied Pow- 
ers principles not only utterly hostile to our own free institu- 
tions, but hostile also to the independence of all nations, and al- 
together opposed to the improvement of the condition of human 
nature; if, in the instance before us, we see a most striking ex- 
position and application of those principles, and if we deem 
our opinions to be entitled to any weight in the estimation of 
mankind,—then I think it is our duty to adopt some such 
measure as the proposed resolution. 

It is worthy of observation, Sir, that as early as July, 1821, 
Baron Strogonoff, the Russian minister at Constantinople, rep- 
resented to the Porte, that, if the undistinguished massacres of 
the Greeks, both of such as were in open resistance and of those 
who remained patient in their submission were continued, and 
should become a settled habit, they would give just cause of 
war ugainst the Porte to all Christian states. ‘This was in 
1821.* It was followed, early in the next year, by that inde- 
scribable enormity, that appalling monument of barbarian ecru- 
elty, the destruction of Scio; a scene I shall not attempt to de- 
scribe; a scene from which human nature shrinks shuddering 
away; a scene having hardly a parallel in the history of fallen 
man. This scene, too, was quickly followed: by the massacres 
in Cyprus; and all these things were perfectly known to the 
Christian powers assembled at Verona. Yet these powers, in- 


* Annual Register for 1821, p. 251. 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 85 


stead of acting upon the case supposed by Baron Strogonoff, 
and which one would think had been then fully made out, — 
instead of being moved by any compassion for the sufferings of 
the Greeks, — these powers, these Christian powers, rebuke their 
gallantry and insult their sufferings by accusing them of “ throw- 
ing a fireband into the Ottoman empire.” Such, Sir, appear to 
me to be the principles on which the Continental powers of Hu- 
rope have agreed hereafter to act; and this, an eminent instance 
of the application of those principles. 

I shall not detain the committee, Mr. Chairman, by any at- 
tempt to recite the events of the Greek struggle up to the pres- 
ent time. Its origin may be found, doubtless, in that improved 
state of knowledge which, for some years, has been gradually 
taking place in that country. The emancipation of the Greeks 
has been a subject frequently discussed in modern times. ‘They 
themselves are represented as having a vivid remembrance of the 
distinction of their ancestors, not unmixed with an indignant 
feeling that civilized and Christian Europe should not ere now 
have aided them in breaking their intolerable fetters. 

In 1816 a society was founded in Vienna for the encourage- 
ment of Grecian literature. It was connected with a similar in- 
stitution at Athens, and another in Thessaly, called the “ Gym- 
nasium of Mount Pelion.” The treasury and general office of 
the institution were established at Munich. *No political object 
was avowed by these institutions, probably none contemplated. 
Still, however, they had their effect, no doubt, in hastening 
that condition of things in which the Greeks felt competent to 
the establishment of their independence. Many young men 
have been for years annually sent to the universities in the west- 
ern states of Europe for their education; and, after the general 
pacification of Europe, many military men, discharged from 
other employment, were ready to enter even into so unpromis- 
ing a service as that of the revolutionary Greeks. 

In 1820, war commenced between the Porte and Ali, the well- 
known Pacha of Albania. Differences existed also with Persia 
and with Russia. In this state of things, at the beginning of 
1821, an insurrection broke out in Moldavia, under the direction 
of Alexander Ypsilanti, a well-educated soldier, who had been 
major-general in the Russian service. From his character, and 
the number of those who seemed inclined to join him, he was 

VOL. III. 8 


86 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


supposed to be countenanced by the court of St. Petersburg. 
This, however, was a great mistake, which the Emperor, then at 
Laybach, took an early opportunity to rectify. The Turkish 
government was alarmed at these occurrences in the northern 
provinces of European Turkey, and caused search to be made 
of all vessels entering the Black Sea, lest arms or other military 
means should be sent in that manner to the insurgents. This 
proved inconvenient to the commerce of Russia, and caused 
some unsatisfactory correspondence between the two powers. 
It may be worthy of remark, as an exhibition of national char- 
acter, that, agitated by these appearances of intestine commo- 
tion, the Sultan issued a proclamation, calling on all true Mus- 
sulmans to renounce the pleasures of social life, to prepare arms 
and horses, and to return to the manner of their ancestors, the 
life of the plains. The Turk seems to have thought that he 
had, at last, caught something of the dangerous contagion of 
Kuropean civilization, and that it was necessary to reform his 
habits, by recurring to the original manners of military roving 
barbarians. 

It was about this time, that is to say, at the commencement 
of 1821, that the revolution burst out in various parts of Greece 
and the isles. Circumstances, certainly, were not unfavorable 
to the movement, as one portion of the Turkish army was em- 
ployed in the war against Ali Pacha in Albania, and another 
part in the provinces north of the Danube. The Greeks soon 
possessed themselves of the open country of the Morea, and 
drove their enemy into the fortresses. Of these, that of 'Tripo- 
litza, with the city, fell into their hands, in the course of the 
summer. Having after these first movements obtained time to 
breathe, it became, of course, an early object to establish a gov- 
ernment. For this purpose delegates of the people assembled, 
under that name which describes the assembly in which we our- 
selves sit, that name which “freed the Atlantic,” a Congress. A 
writer, who undertakes to render to the civilized world that ser- 
vice which was once performed by Edmund Burke, I mean the 
compiler of the English Annual Register, asks, by what author- 
ity this assembly could call itself a Congress. Simply, Sir, by 
the same authority by which the people of the United States 
have given the same name to their own legislature. We, at 
least, should be naturally inclined to think, not only as far as 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 87 


names, but things also, are concerned, that the Greeks could 
hardly have begun their revolution under better auspices; since 
they have endeavored to render applicable to themselves the gen- 
eral principles of our form of government, as well as its name. 
This constitution went into operation at the commencement of 
the next year. In the mean time, the war with Ali Pacha was 
ended, he having surrendered, and being afterwards assassinated, 
by an instance of treachery and perfidy, which, if it had happened 
elsewhere than under the government of the Turks, would have 
deserved notice. ‘The negotiation with Russia, too, took a turn 
unfavorable to the Greeks. ‘The great point upon which Russia 
insisted, beside the abandonment of the measure of searching 
vessels bound to the Black Sea, was, that the Porte should with- 
draw its armies from the neighborhood of the Russian frontiers ; 
and the immediate consequence of this, when effected, was to 
add so much more to the disposable force ready to be employed 
against the Greeks. These events seemed to have left the whole 
force of the Ottoman empire, at the commencement of 1822, 
in a condition to be employed against the Greek rebellion ; 
and, accordingly, very many anticipated the immediate destruc- 
tion of the cause. ‘I'he event, however, was ordered otherwise. 
Where the greatest effort was made, it was met and defeated. 
Entering the Morea with an army which seemed capable of bear- 
ing down all resistance, the Turks were nevertheless defeated 
and driven back, and pursued beyond the isthmus, within which, 
as far as it appears, from that time to the present, they have not 
been able to set their foot. 

It was in April of this year that the destruction of Scio took 
place. ‘That island, a sort of appanage of the Sultana mother, 
enjoyed many privileges peculiar to itself. In a population of 
130,000 or 140,000, it had no more than 2,000 or 3,000 Turks ; 
indeed, by some accounts, not near as many. ‘The absence of 
these ruffian masters had in some degree allowed opportunity 
for the promotion of knowledge, the accumulation of wealth, 
and the general cultivation of society. Here was the seat of 
modern Greek literature; here were libraries, printing-presses, 
and other establishments, which indicate some advancement in 
refinement and knowledge. Certain of the inhabitants of Sa- 
mos, it would seem, envious of this comparative happiness of 
Scio, landed upon the island in an irregular multitude, for the 


88 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


purpose of compelling its inhabitants to make common cause 
with their countrymen against their oppressors. ‘These, being 
joined by the peasantry, marched to the city and drove the 
Turks into the castle. ‘The ‘Turkish fleet, lately reinforced from 
Egypt, happened to be in the neighboring seas, and, learning 
these events, landed a force on the island of fifteen thousand men. 
There was nothing to resist such an army. ‘These troops imme- 
diately entered the city and began an indiscriminate massacre. 
The city was fired; and in four days the fire and sword of the 
Turk rendered the beautiful Scio a clotted mass of blood and 
ashes. ‘The details are too shocking to be recited. Forty thou- 
sand women and children, unhappily saved from the general des- 
truction, were afterwards sold in the market of Smyrna, and sent 
off into distant and hopeless servitude. Even on the wharves of 
our own cities, it has been said, have been sold the utensils of 
those hearths which now exist no longer. Of the whole popu- 
lation which I have mentioned, not above nine hundred persons 
were left living upon the island. I will only repeat, Sir, that 
these tragical scenes were as fully known at the Congress of 
Verona, as they are now known to us; and it is not too much 
to call on the powers that constituted that congress, in the name 
of conscience and in the name of humanity, to tell us if there 
be nothing even in these unparalleled excesses of Turkish bar- 
barity to excite a sentiment of compassion; nothing which they 
regard as so objectionable as even the very idea of popular re- 
sistance to power. 

The events of the year which has just passed by, as far as 
they have become known to us, have been even more favorable 
to the Greeks than those of the year preceding. I omit all de- 
tails, as being as well known to others as to myself. Suffice it 
to say, that with no other enemy to contend with, and no diver- 
sion of his force to other objects, the Porte has not been able to 
carry the war into the Morea; and that, by the last accounts, its 
armies were acting defensively in Thessaly. I pass over, also, 
the naval engagements of the Greeks, although that is a mode 
of warfare in which they are calculated to excel, and in which 
they have already performed actions of such distinguished skill 
and bravery, as would draw applause upon the best mariners in 
the world. The present state of the war would seem to be, that 
the Greeks possess the whole of the Morea, with the exception 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE, 9 


of the three fortresses of Patras, Coron, and Modon; all Candia, 
but one fortress; and most of the other islands. ‘They possess 
the citadel of Athens, Missolonghi, and several other places in 
Livadia. ‘They have been able to act on the offensive, and to 
earry the war beyond the isthmus. ‘There is no reason to be- 
lieve their marine is weakened; more probably, it is strength- 
ened. But, what is most important of all, they have obtained 
time and experience. ‘They have awakened a sympathy 
throughout Europe and throughout America; and they have 
formed a government which seems suited to the emergency of 
their condition. 

Sir, they have done much. It would be great injustice to 
compare their achievements with our own. We began our 
Revolution, already possessed of government, and, comparative- 
ly, of civil liberty. Our ancestors had from the first been accus- 
tomed in a great measure to govern themselves. ‘They were 
familiar with popular elections and legislative assemblies, and 
well acquainted with the general principles and practice of free 
governments. 'I'hey had little else to do than to throw off the 
paramount authority of the parent state. Hnough was still left, 
both of law and of organization, to conduct society in its accus- 
tomed course, and to unite men together for a common object. 
The Greeks, of course, could act with little concert at the begin- 
ning; they were unaccustomed to the exercise of power, without 
experience, with limited knowledge, without aid, and surround- 
ed by nations which, whatever claims the Greeks might seem 
to have upon them, have afforded them nothing but discour- 
agement and reproach. ‘They have held out, however, for three 
campaigns; and that, at least, is something. Constantineple 
and the northern provinces have sent forth thousands of troops; 
—they have been defeated. ‘Tripoli, and Algiers, and Egypt, 
have contributed their marine contingents;— they have not 
kept the ocean. Hordes of ‘Tartars have crossed the Bospho- 
rus;—they have died where the Persians died. ‘The powerful 
monarchies in the neighborhood have denounced their cause, 
and admonished them to abandon it and submit to their fate. 
They have answered them, that, although two hundred thou- 
sand of their countrymen have offered up their lives, there yet 
remain lives to offer; and that it is the determination of ad, 
“yes, of au,” to persevere until they shall have established their 


SH 


90 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


liberty, or until the power of their oppressors shall have relieved 
them from the burden of existence. 

It may now be asked, perhaps, whether the expression of our 
own sympathy, and that of the country, may do them good? I 
hope it may. It may give them courage and spirit, it may assure 
them of public regard, teach them that they are not wholly for- 
gotten by the civilized world, and inspire them with constancy 
in the pursuit of their great end. At any rate, Sir, it appears to 
me that the measure which I have proposed is due to our own 
character, and called for by our own duty. When we shall 
have discharged that duty, we may leave the rest to the dispo- 
sition of Providence. 

I do not see how it can be doubted that this measure is en- 
tirely pacific. I profess my inability to perceive that it has any 
possible tendency to involve our neutral relations. If the reso- 
lution pass, it is not of necessity to be immediately acted on. 
Tt will not be acted on at all, unless, in the opinion of the Pres- 
ident, a proper and safe occasion for acting upon it shall arise. 
If we adopt the resolution to-day, our relations with every for- 
eign state will be to-morrow precisely what they now are. The 
resolution will be sufficient to express our sentiments on the 
subjects to which I have adverted. Useful for that purpose, it 
can be mischievous for no purpose. If the topic were properly 
introduced into the message, it cannot be improperly introduced 
into discussion in this House. If it were proper, which no one 
doubts, for the President to express his opinions upon it, it can- 
not, I think, be improper for us to express ours. ‘T’he only cer- 
tain effect of this resolution is to signify, in a form usual in 
bodies constituted like this, our approbation of the general sen- 
timent of the message. Do we wish to withhold that approba- 
tion? ‘The resolution confers on the President no new power, 
nor does it enjoin on him the exercise of any new duty; nor 
does it hasten him in the discharge of any existing duty. 

I cannot imagine that this resolution can add any thing to 
those excitements which it has been supposed, I think very 
causelessly, might possibly provoke the 'Turkish government to 
acts of hostility. There is already the message, expressing the 
hope of success to the Greeks and disaster to the Turks, in a 
much stronger manner than is to be implied from the terms of 
this resolution. There is the correspondence between the Sec: 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 91 


retary of State and the Greek Agent in London, already made 
public, in which similar wishes are expressed, and a continuance 
of the correspondence apparently invited. I might add to this, 
the unexampled burst of feeling which this cause has called 
forth from all classes of society, and the notorious fact of pecu- 
niary contributions made throughout the country for its aid and 
advancement. After all this, whoever can see cause of danger 
to our pacific relations from the adoption of this resolution has 
a keener vision than I can pretend to. Sir, there is no aug- 
mented danger; there is no danger. The question comes at 
last to this, whether, on a subject of this sort, this House holds 
an opinion which is worthy to be expressed. 

Even suppose, Sir, an agent or commissioner were to be im- 
mediately sent, —a measure which I myself believe to be the 
proper one, — there is no breach of neutrality, nor any just cause 
of offence. Such an agent, of course, would not be accredited: 
he would not be a public minister. ‘The object would be inqui- 
ry and information; inquiry which we have a right to make, in- 
formation which we are interested to possess. If a dismember- 
ment of the Turkish empire be taking place, or has already 
taken place; if a new state be rising, or be already risen, in the 
Mediterranean, — who can doubt, that, without any breach of 
neutrality, we may inform ourselves of these events for the gov- 
ernment of our own concerns? ‘The Greeks have declared the 
Turkish coasts in a state of blockade; may we not inform our- 
selves whether this blockade be nominal or real? and, of course, 
whether it shall be regarded or disregarded? The greater our 
trade may happen to be with Smyrna, a consideration which 
seems to have alarmed some gentlemen, the greater is the rea- 
son, in my opinion, why we should seek to be accurately in- 
formed of those events which may affect its safety. It seems to 
me impossible, therefore, for any reasonable man to imagine 
that this resolution can expose us to the resentment of the Sub- 
lime Porte. 

As little reason is there for fearing its consequences upon the 
conduct of the Allied Powers. ‘They may, very naturally, dis- 
like our sentiments upon the subject of the Greek revolution: 
but what those sentiments are they will much more explicitly 
learn in the President’s message than in this resolution. ‘They 
might, indeed, prefer that we should express no dissent from the 


92 THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 


doctrines which they have avowed, and the application which 
they have made of those doctrines to the case of Greece. But I 
trust we are not disposed to leave them in any doubt as to our 
sentiments upon these important subjects. They have ex- 
pressed their opinions, and do not call that expression of opinion 
an interference; in which respect they are right, as the expres- 
sion of opinion in such cases is not such an interference as 
would justify the Greeks in considering the powers at war with 
them. For the same reason, any expression which we may 
make of different principles and different sympathies is no 
interference. No one would call the President’s message an 
interference; and yet it is much stronger in that respect than 
this resolution. If either of them could be construed to be an 
interference, no doubt it would be improper, at least it would be 
so according to my view of the subject; for the very thing which 
I have attempted to resist in the course of these observations is 
the right of foreign interference. But neither the message nor 
the resolution has that character. ‘There is not a power in Eu- 
rope which can suppose, that, in expressing our opinions on this 
occasion, we are governed by any desire of aggrandizing our- 
selves or of injuring others. We do no more than to maintain 
those established principles in which we have an interest in 
common with other nations, and to resist the introduction of 
new principles and new rules, calculated to destroy the relative 
independence of states, and particularly hostile to the whole 
fabric of our government. 

I close, then, Sir, with repeating, that the object of this resolu- 
tion is to avail ourselves of the interesting occasion of the 
Greek revolution to make our protest against the doctrines of 
the Allied Powers, both as they are laid down in principle and 
as they are applied in practice. I think it right, too, Sir, not to 
be unseasonable in the expression of our regard, and, as far as 
that goes, in a manifestation of our sympathy with a long op- 
pressed and now struggling people. I am not of those who 
would, in the hour of utmost peril, withhold such encouragement 
as might be properly and lawfully given, and, when the crisis 
should be past, overwhelm the rescued sufferer with kindness 
and caresses. ‘The Greeks address the civilized world with a 
pathos not easy to be resisted. ‘They invoke our favor by more 
moving considerations than can well belong to the condition of 


THE REVOLUTION IN GREECE. 93 


any other people. They stretch out their arms to the Christian 
communities of the earth, beseeching them, by a generous rec- 
ollection of their ancestors, by the consideration of their deso- 
lated and ruined cities and villages, by their wives and children 
sold into an accursed slavery, by their blood, which they seem 
willing to pour out like water, by the common faith, and in the 
name, which unites all Christians, that they would extend te 
thera at least some token of compassionate regard. 


DEL Bea T Ado E, of 


Ar an early period of the session of Congress of 1823-24 a bill 
was introduced into the House of Representatives to amend the sev- 
eral acts laying duties on imports. The object of the bill was a 
comprehensive revision of the existing laws, with a view to the exten- 
sion of the protective system. The bill became the subject of a 
protracted debate, in which much of the talent of the House on both 
sides was engaged. Mr. Webster took an active part in the discussion, 
and spoke upon many of the details of the bill while it remained in the 
committee of the whole house on the state of the Union. Several ob- 
jectionable provisions were removed, and various amendments were in- 
troduced upon his motion; and it was a matter of regret to him, as seen 
in the following speech, that the friends of the bill were not able or will- 
ing to bring it into a form in which, as a whole, he could give it his 
support. On the 30th and 31st of March, Mr. Clay, Speaker of the 
House, addressed the committee of the whole, at length and with great 
ability, on the general principles of the bill; and he was succeeded by 
Mr. Webster, on the Ist and 2d of April, in the following speech. 


Mr. Cuatrman, —I will avail myself of the present occasion 
to make some remarks on certain principles and opinions which 
have been recently advanced, and on those considerations which, 
in my judgment, ought to govern us in deciding upon the sey- 
eral and respective parts of this very important and complex 
measure. I can truly say that this is a painful duty. I deeply 
regret the necessity which is likely to be imposed upon me of 
giving a general affirmative or negative vote on the whole of 


* A Speech delivered on the 1st and 2d of April, 1824, in the House of Rep- 
resentatives, on the Bill for revising the several Acts imposing Duties on Certain 
Articles imported into the United States. 


THE TARIFF. 95 


the bill. I cannot but think this mode of proceeding liable to 
great objections. It exposes both those who support and those 
who oppose the measure to very unjust and injurious misappre- 
hensions. 'There may be good reasons for favoring some of the 
provisions of the bill, and equally strong reasons for opposing 
others; and these provisions do not stand to each other in the 
relation of principal and incident. If that were the case, those 
who are in favor of the principal might forego their opinions 
upon incidental and subordinate provisions. But the bill pro- 
poses enactments entirely distinct and different from one an- 
other in character and tendency. Some of its clauses are in- 
tended merely for revenue; and of those which regard the pro- 
tection of home manufactures, one part stands upon very differ- 
ent grounds from those of other parts. So that probably every 
gentleman who may ultimately support the bill will vote for 
much which his judgment does not approve; and those who op- 
pose it will oppose something which they would very gladly 
support. 

Being intrusted with the interests of a district highly commer- 
cial, and deeply interested in manufactures also, I wish to state 
my opinions on the present measure, not as on a whole, for it 
has no entire and homogeneous character, but as on a collection 
of different enactments, some of which meet my approbation 
and some of which do not. 

And allow me, Sir, in the first place, to state my regret, if in- 
deed I ought not to express a warmer sentiment, at the names 
or designations which Mr. Speaker* has seen fit to adopt for 
the purpose of describing the advocates and the opposers of the 
present bill. It is a question, he says, between the friends of an 
“ American policy” and those of a “foreign policy.” This, Sir, 
is an assumption which I take the liberty most directly to deny. 
Mr. Speaker certainly intended nothing invidious or derogatory 
to any part of the House by this mode of denominating friends 
and enemies. But there is power in names, and this manner 
of distinguishing those who favor and those who oppose pattic- 
ular measures may lead to inferences to which no member of the 
House can submit. It may imply that there is a more exclusive 
and peculiar regard to American interests in one class of opin- 


* Mr. Clay. 


Oy THE TARIFF. 


ions than in another. Such an implication is to be resisted and 
repelled. Every member has a right to the presumption, that he 
pursues what he believes to be the interest of his country with 
as sincere a zeal as any other member. I claim this in my own 
case; and while I shall not, for any purpose of description or 
‘convenient arrangement, use terms which may imply any disre- 
spect to other men’s opinions, much less any imputation upon 
other men’s motives, it is my duty to take care that the use of 
such terms by others be not, against the will of those who adopt 
them, made to produce a false impression. 

Indeed, Sir, it is a little astonishing, if it seemed convenient 
to Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of distinction, to make use of 
the terms “ American policy” and “foreign policy,’ that he 
should not have applied them in a manner precisely the reverse 
of that in which he has in fact used them. If names are 
thought necessary, it would be well enough, one would think, 
that the name should be in some measure descriptive of the 
thing; and since Mr. Speaker denominates the policy which he 
recommends “a new policy in this country”; since he speaks 
of the present measure as a new era in our legislation; since 
he professes to invite us to depart from our accustomed course, 
to instruct ourselves by the wisdom of others, and to adopt the 
policy of the most distinguished foreign states, — one is a little 
curious to know with what propriety of speech this imitation of 
other nations is denominated an “ American policy,” while, on 
the contrary, a preference for our own established system, as it « 
now actually exists and always has existed, is called a “foreign 
policy.” This favorite American policy is what America has 
never tried; and this odious foreign policy is what, as we are 
told, foreign states have never pursued. Sir, that is the truest 
American policy which shall most usefully employ American 
capital and American labor, and best sustain the whole popula- 
tion. With me it is a fundamental axiom, it is interwoven with 
all my opinions, that the great interests of the country are united 
and inseparable; that agriculture, commerce, and manufactures 
will prosper together or languish together; and that all legisla- 
tion is dangerous which proposes to benefit one of these without 
looking to consequences which may fall on the others. 

Passing from this, Sir, I am bound to say.that Mr. Speaker 
began his able and impressive speech at the proper point of in- 


THE TARIFF. 97 


quiry; I mean the present state and condition of the country ; 
although I am so unfortunate, or rather although Iam so happy, 
as to differ from him very widely in regard to that condition. I 
dissent entirely from the justice of that picture of distress which 
he has drawn. I have not seen the reality, and know not where 
it exists. Within my observation, there is no cause for so 
gloomy and terrifying a representation. In respect to the New 
England States, with the condition of which I am of course 
best acquainted, the present appears to me a period of very 
general prosperity. Not, indeed, a time for sudden acquisition 
and great profits, not a day of extraordinary activity and suc- 
cessful speculation. ‘There is no doubt a considerable depres- 
sion of prices, and, in some degree, a stagnation of business. 
But the case presented by Mr. Speaker was not one of depres- 
sion, but of distress; of universal, pervading, intense distress, 
limited to no class and to no place. We are represented as on 
the very verge and brink of national ruin. So far from acquies- 
cing in these opinions, I believe there has been no period in 
which the general prosperity was better secured, or rested on a 
more solid foundation. As applicable to the Eastern States, I 
put this remark to their representatives, and ask them if it is not 
true. When has there been a time in which the means of living 
have been more accessible and more abundant? When has labor 
been rewarded, I do not say with a larger, but with a more cer- 
tain success? Profits, indeed, are low; in some pursuits of life, 
which it is not proposed to benefit, but to burden, by this bill, 
very low. But still I am unacquainted with any proofs of ex- 
traordinary distress. What, indeed, are the general indications 
of the state of the country? There is no famine nor pestilence 
in the land, nor war, nor desolation. There is no writhing un- 
der the burden of taxation. The means of subsistence are 
abundant; and at the very moment when the miserable condi- 
tion of the country is asserted, it is admitted that the wages of 
labor are high in comparison with those of any other country. 
A country, then, enjoying a profound peace, perfect civil liberty, 
with the means of subsistence cheap and abundant, with the re- 
ward of labor sure, and its wages higher than anywhere else, 
cannot be represented as in gloom, melancholy, and distress, but 
by the effort of extraordinary powers of tragedy. 

Even if, in judging of this question, we were to regard only 

VOL. III. 9 


a8 THE TARIFF. 


those proofs to which we have been referred, we shall probably 
come to a conclusion somewhat different from that which has 
been drawn. Our exports, for example, although certainly less 
than in some years, were not, last year, so much below an ay- 
erage formed upon the exports of a series of years, and putting 
those exports at a fixed value, as might be supposed. ‘The value 
of the exports of agricultural products, of animals, of the prod- 
ucts of the forest and of the sea, together with gunpowder, 
spirits, and sundry unenumerated articles, amounted in the sev- 
eral years to the following sums, viz. :— 


Tae 700 8 en en eee a 
TSO eee ey cemet ee 
1307 Stee ee ee ee ean 


Coming up now to our own times, and taking the exports of 
the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, of the same acunlee and prod- 
ucts, at the same prices, they stand thus : — 


In 1821, 16 oicrsitey oltading #6 46 Ovi PSMa BEST 
1820:-Q782 01 (SY inonk ele eevee begs 
182W.Hxhinog Ie. Walls Bawego shee we 5a cee 


Mr. Speaker has taken the very extraordinary year of 1803, 
and, adding to the exportation of that year what he thinks 
ought to have been a just augmentation, in proportion to the 
increase of our population, he swells the result to a magnitude, 
which, when compared with our actual exports, would exhibit a 
ereat deficiency. But is there any justice in this mode of cal- 
culation? In the first place, as before observed, the year 1803 
was a year of extraordinary exportation. By reference to the 
accounts, that of the article of flour, for example, there was an 
export that year of thirteen hundred thousand barrels; but the 
very next year it fell to eight hundred thousand, and the next 
year to seven hundred thousand. In the next place, there never 
was any reason to expect that the increase of our exports of ag- 
ricultural products would keep pace with the increase of our 
population. ‘That would be against all experience. It is, in- 
deed, most desirable, that there should be an augmented demand | 
for the products of agriculture; but, nevertheless, the official 
returns of our exports do not show that absolute want of all for- 
eign market which has been so strongly stated. 

But there are other means by which to judge of the general 


THE TARIFF. 99 


condition of the people. ‘The quantity of the means of subsist-. 
ence consumed, or, to make use of a phraseology better suited 
to the condition of our own people, the quantity of the comforts 
of life enjoyed, is one of those means. It so happens, indeed, 
that it is not so easy in this country as elsewhere to ascertain 
facts of this sort with accuracy. Where most of the articles of 
subsistence and most of the comforts of life are taxed, there is, 
of course, great facility in ascertaining, from official statements, 
the amount of consumption. But in this country, most fortu- 
nately, the government neither knows, nor is concerned to know, 
the annual consumption; and estimates can only be formed in 
another mode, and in reference only to a few articles. Of these 
articles, tea is one. It is not quite a luxury, and yet is some- 
thing above the absolute necessaries of life. Its consumption, 
therefore, will be diminished in times of adversity, and aug- 
mented in times of prosperity. By deducting the annual ex- 
port from the annual import, and taking a number of years 
together, we may arrive at a probable estimate of consumption. 
The average of eleven years, from 1790 to 1800, inclusive, will 
be found to be two millions and a half of pounds. From 1801 
to 1812, inclusive, the average was three millions seven hundred 
thousand; and the average of the last three years, to wit, 1821, 
1822, and 1823, was five millions anda half. Having made a 
just allowance for the increase of our numbers, we shall still 
find, I think, from these statements, that there is no distress 
which has limited our means of subsistence and enjoyment. 

In forming an opinion of the degree of general prosperity, we 
may regard, likewise, the progress of internal improvements, the 
investment of capital in roads, bridges, and canals. All these 
prove a balance of income over expenditure; they afford evi- 
dence that there is a surplus of profits, which the present gener- 
ation is usefully vesting for the benefit of the next. It cannot 
be denied, that, in this particular, the progress of the country is 
steady and rapid. 

We may look, too, to the sums expended for education. Are 
our colleges deserted? Do fathers find themselves less able than 
usual to educate their children? It will be found, I imagine, 
that the amount paid for the purpose of education is constantly 
increasing, and that the schools and colleges were never more 
full than at the present moment. I may add, that the endow- 


100 THE TARIFF. 


ment of public charities, the contributions to objects of general 
benevolence, whether foreign or domestic, the munificence of 
individuals towards whatever promises to benefit the communi- 
ty, are all so many proofs of national prosperity. And, finally, 
there is no defalcation of revenue, no pressure of taxation. 

The general result, therefore, of a fair examination of the pres- 
ent condition of things, seems to me to be, that there is a con- 
siderable depression of prices, and curtailment of profit; and in 
some parts of the country, it must be admitted, there is a great 
degree of pecuniary embarrassment, arising from the difficulty 
of paying debts which were contracted when prices were high. 
With these qualifications, the general state of the country may 
be said to be prosperous; and these are not sufficient to give to 
the whole face of affairs any appearance of general distress. 

Supposing the evil, then, to be a depression of prices, and a 
partial pecuniary pressure, the next inquiry is into the causes of 
that evil; and it appears to me that there are several; and in 
this respect, I think, too much has been imputed by Mr. Speak- 
er to the single cause of the diminution of exports. Connected, 
as we are, with all the commercial nations of the world, and 
having observed great changes to take place elsewhere, we 
should consider whether the causes of those changes have not 
reached us, and whether we are not suffering by the operation 
of them, in common with others. Undoubtedly, there has been 
a great fall in the price of all commodities throughout the com- 
mercial world, in consequence of the restoration of a state of 
peace. When the Allies entered France in 1814, prices rose as- 
tonishingly fast, and very high. Colonial produce, for instance, 
in the ports of this country, as well as elsewhere, sprung up sud- 
denly from the lowest to the highest extreme. A new and vast 
demand was created for the commodities of trade. These were 
the natural consequences of the great political changes which 
then took place in Europe. 

We are to consider, too, that our own war created new de- 
mand, and that a government expenditure of twenty-five or 
thirty million dollars a year had the usual effect of enhancing 
prices. We are obliged to add, that the paper issues of our 
banks carried the same effect still further. A depreciated cur- 
rency existed in a great part of the country; depreciated to such 
an extent, that, at one time, exchange between the centre and the 


THE TARIFF. 101 


North was as high as twenty per cent. The Bank of the United — 
States was instituted to correct this evil; but, for causes which 
it is not necessary now to enumerate, it did not for some years 
bring back the currency of the country to a sound state. ‘This 
depreciation of the circulating currency was so much, of course, 
added to the nominal prices of commodities, and these prices, 
thus unnaturally high, seemed, to those who looked only at the 
appearance, to indicate great prosperity. But such prosperity is 
more specious than real. It would have been better, probably, 
as the shock would have been less, if prices had fallen sooner. 
At length, however, they fell; and as there is little doubt that 
certain events in Europe had an influence in determining the 
time at which this fall took place, I will advert shortly to some 
of the principal of those events. 

In May, 1819, the British House of Commons decided, by a 
unanimous vote, that the resumption of cash payments by the 
Bank of England should not be deferred beyond the ensuing 
February. ‘The restriction had been continued from time te 
time, and from year to year, Parliament. always professing to 
look to the restoration of a specie currency whenever it should 
be found practicable. Having been, in July, 1818, continued to. 
July, 1819, it was understood that, in the interim, the important 
question of the time at which cash payments should be resumed 
should be finally settled. In the latter part of the year 1818, the 
circulation of the bank had been greatly reduced, and a severe 
scarcity of money was felt in the London market. Such was the 
state of things in England. On the Continent, other important 
events took place. ‘The French Indemnity Loan had been nego- 
tiated in the summer of 1818, and the proportion of it belonging 
to Austria, Russia, and Prussia had been sold. ‘This created an 
unusual demand for gold and silver in those countries. It has 
been stated, that the amount of the precious metals transmitted 
to Austria and Russia in that year was at least twenty millions 
sterling. Otherlarge sums were sent to Prussia and to Denmark. 
The effect of this sudden drain of specie, felt first at Paris, was 
communicated to Amsterdam and Hamburg, and all other com- 
mercial places in the North of Europe. 

‘The paper system of England had certainly communicated an 
artificial value to property. It had encouraged speculation, and 
excited over-trading. When the shock therefore came, and this 

9 * 


102 THE TARIFF. 


violent pressure for money acted at the same moment on the 
Continent and in England, inflated and unnatural prices could 
be kept up no longer. A reduction took place, which has been 
estimated to have been at least equal to a fall of thirty, if not 
forty per cent. The depression was universal; and the change 
was felt in the United States severely, though not equally so 
in every part. There are those, I am aware, who maintain 
that the events to which I have alluded did not cause the great 
fall of prices, but that that fall was natural and inevitable, from 
the previously existing state of things, the abundance of com- 
modities, and the want of demand. But that would only 
prove that the effect was produced in another way, rather than 
by another cause. If these great and sudden calls for money 
did not reduce prices, but prices fell, as of themselves, to their 
natural state, still the result is the same; for we perceive that, 
after these new calls for money, prices could not be kept longer 
at their unnatural height. 

About the time of these foreign events, our own bank system 
underwent a change; and all these causes, in my view of the 
subject, concurred to produce the great shock which took place 
in our commercial cities, and in many parts of the country. 
The year 1819 was a year of numerous failures, and very con- 
siderable distress, and would have furnished far better grounds 
than exist at present for that gloomy representation of our con- 
dition which has been presented. Mr. Speaker has alluded to 
the strong inclination which exists, or has existed, in various 
parts of the country, to issue paper money, as a proof of great 
existing difficulties. Iyregard it rather as a very productive cause 
of those difficulties ; and the committee will not fail to observe, 
that there is, at this moment, much the loudest complaint of 
distress precisely where there has been the greatest attempt to 
relieve it by systems of paper credit. And, on the other hand, 
congent, prosperity, and happiness are most observable in those 
parts of the country where there has been the least endeavor to 
administer relief by law. In truth, nothing is so baneful, so 
utterly ruinous to all true industry, as interfering with the legal 
value of money, or attempting to raise artificial standards to 
supply its place. Such remedies suit well the spirit of extrava- 
gant speculation, but they sap the very foundation of all honest 
acquisition. By weakening the security of property, they take 


THE TARIFF. 103 


away all motive for exertion. ‘Their effect is to transfer prop- 
erty. Whenever a debt is allowed to be paid by any thing less 
valuable than the legal currency in respect to which it was con- 
tracted, the difference between the value of the paper given in 
payment and the legal currency is precisely so much property 
taken from one man and given to another, by legislative enact- 
ment. 

When we talk, therefore, of protecting industry, let us reinem: 
ber that the first measure for that end is to secure it in its earn- 
ings; to assure it that it shall receive its own. Before we invent 
new modes of raising prices, let us take care that existing prices 
are not rendered wholly unavailable, by making them capable 
of being paid in depreciated paper. I regard, Sir, this issue of 
irredeemable paper as the most prominent and deplorable cause 
of whatever pressure still exists in the country; and, further, I 
would put the question to the members of this committee, 
whether it is not from that part of the people who have tried 
this paper system, and tried it to their cost, that this bill receives 
the most earnest support? And I cannot forbear to ask, further, 
whether this support does not proceed rather from a general feel- 
ing of uneasiness under the present condition of things, than 
from the clear perception of any benefit which the measure itself 
can confer? Is not all expectation of advantage centred in a 
sort of vague hope, that change may produce relief? Debt cer- 
tainly presses hardest where prices have been longest kept up 
by artificial means. They find the shock lightest who take it 
soonest; and I fully believe that, if those parts of the country 
which now suffer most, had not augmented the force of the blow 
by deferring it, they would have now been ina much better con- 
dition than they are. We may assure ourselves, once for all, 
Sir, that there can be no such thing as payment of debts by 
legislation. We may abolish debts indeed; we may transfer 
property by visionary and violent laws. But we deceive both 
ourselves and our constituents, if we flatter either ourselves or 
them with the hope that there is any relief against whatever 
pressure exists, but in economy and industry. ‘I'he depression 
of prices and the stagnation of business have been in truth the 
necessary result of circumstances. No government could pre- 
vent them, and no government can altogether relieve the people 
from their effect. We have enjoyed a day of extraordinary pros- 


104 THE. TARLIER, 


perity ; we had been neutral while the world was at war, and 
had found a great demand for our products, our navigation, and 
our labor. We had no right to expect that that state of things 
would continue always. With the return of peace, foreign na- 
tions would struggle for themselves, and enter into competition 
with us in the great objects of pursuit. 

Now, Sir, what is the remedy for existing evils? What is the 
course of policy suited to our actual condition? Certainly it is 
not our wisdom to adopt any system that may be oflered to us, 
without examination, and in the blind hope that whatever 
changes our condition may improve it. It is better that we 


should 
‘¢ bear those ills we have, 
Than fly to others that we know not of.”’ 


We are bound to see that there is a fitness and an aptitude in 
whatever measures may be recommended to relieve the evils 
that afflict us; and before we adopt a system that professes to 
make great alterations, it is our duty to look carefully to each 
leading interest of the community, and see how it may proba- 
bly be affected by our proposed legislation. 

And, in the first place, what is the condition of our com- 
merce? Here we must clearly perceive, that it is not enjoying 
that rich harvest which fell to its fortune during the continuance — 
of the European wars. It has been greatly depressed, and lim- 
ited to small profits. Still, it is elastic and active, and seems 
capable of recovering itself in some measure from its depression. 
The shipping interest, also, has suffered severely, still more 
severely, probably, than commerce. If any thing should strike 
us with astonishment, it is that the navigation of the United 
States should be able to sustain itself.: Without any govern- 
ment protection whatever, it goes abroad to challenge compe- 
tition with the whole world; and, in spite of all obstacles, it has 
yet been able to maintain eight hundred thousand tons in the 
employment of foreign trade. How, Sir, do the ship-owners 
and navigators accomplish this? How is it that they are able 
to meet, and in some measure overcome, universal competition ? 
Jt is not, Sir, by protection and bounties; but by unwearied ex- 
ertion, by extreme economy, by unshaken perseverance, by that 
manly and resolute spirit which relies on itself to protect itself. 
These causes alone enable American ships still to keep their 


THE TARIFF. 105 


element, and show the flag of their country in distant seas. 
The rates of insurance may teach us how thoroughly our ships 
are built, and how skilfully and safely they are navigated. Risks 
are taken, as I learn, from the United States to Liverpool, at 
one per cent.; and from the United States to Canton and back, 
as low as three per cent. But when we look to the low rate of 
freight, and when we consider, also, that the articles entering 
into the composition of a ship, with the exception of wood, are 
dearer here than in other countries, we cannot but be utterly 
surprised that the shipping interest has been able to sustain 
itself at all. I need not say that the navigation of the country 
is essential to its honor and its defence. Yet, instead of pro- 
posing benefits for it in this hour of its depression, we threaten 
by this measure to lay upon it new and heavy burdens. In the 
discussion, the other day, of that provision of the bill which 
proposes to tax tallow for the benefit of the oil-merchants and 
whalemen, we had the pleasure of hearing eloquent eulogiums 
upon that portion of our shipping employed in the whale-fishery, 
and strong statements of its importance to the public interest. 
But the same bill proposes a severe tax upon that interest, for 
the benefit of the iron-manufacturer and the hemp-grower. So 
that the tallow-chandlers and soapboilers are sacrificed to the oil- 
merchants, in order that these again may contribute to the man- 
ufacturers of iron and the growers of hemp. 

If such be the state of our commerce and navigation, what is 
the condition of our home manufactures? How are they amidst 
the general depression? Do they need further protection? and 
if any, how much? On all these points, we have had much 
general statement, but little precise information. In the very 
elaborate speech of Mr. Speaker, we are not supplied with satis- 
factory grounds of judging with respect to these various partic- 
ulars. Who can tell, from any thing yet before the committee, 
whether the proposed duty be too high or too low on any one 
article? Gentlemen tell us, that they are in favor of domestic 
industry; soam I. ‘They would give it protection; so would IL 
But then all domestic industry is not confined to manufactares. 
The employments of agriculture, commerce, and navigation are 
all branches of the same domestic industry; they all furnish 
employment for American capital and American labor. And 
when the question is, whether new duties shall be laid, for the 


106 THE TARIFF. 


purpose of giving further encouragement to particular manu- 
factures, every reasonable man must ask himself, both whether 
the proposed new encouragement be necessary, and whether it 
can be given without injustice to other branches of industry. 

It is desirable to know, also, somewhat more distinctly, how 
the proposed means will produce the intended effect. One great 
object proposed, for example, is the increase of the home market 
for the consumption of agricultural products. ‘This certainly is 
much to be desired; but what provisions of the bill are expected 
wholly or principally to produce this, is not stated. I would 
not deny that some increase of the home market may follow, 
from the adoption of this bill, but all its provisions have not an 
equal tendency to produce this effect. Those manufactures 
which employ most labor, create, of course, most demand for 
articles of consumption; and those create least in the production 
of which capital and skill enter as the chief ingredients of cost. 
I cannot, Sir, take this bill merely because a committee has 
recommended it. I cannot espouse a side, and fight under a 
flag. I wholly repel the idea that we must take this law, or 
pass no law on-the subject. What should hinder us from exer- 
cising our own judgments upon these provisions, singly and 
severally? Who has the power to place us, or why should we 
place ourselves, in a condition where we cannot give to every 
measure, that is distinct and separate in itself, a separate and 
distinct consideration? Sir, I presume no member of the com- 
mittee will withhold his assent from what he thinks right, until 
others will yield their assent to what they think wrong. ‘There 
are many things in this bill acceptable, probably, to the general 
sense of the House. Why should not these provisions be passed 
into a law, and others left to be decided upon their own merits, 
as a majority of the House shall see fit? To some of these 
provisions, | am myself decidedly favorable; to others I have 
great objections; and I should have been very glad of an oppor- 
tunity of giving my own vote distinctly on propositions which 
are, in their own nature, essentially and substantially distinct 
from one another. 

But, Sir, before expressing my own opinion upon the several 
provisions of this bill, I will advert for a moment to some other 
general topics. We have heard much of the policy of England, 
and her example has been repeatedly urged upon us, as proving, 


THE TARIFF. 107 


not only the expediency of encouragement and protection, but 
of exclusion and direct prohibition also. I took occasion the 
other day to remark, that more liberal notions were becoming 
prevalent on this subject; that the policy of restraints and pro- 
hibitions was getting out of repute, as the true nature of com- 
merce became better understood; and that, among public men, 
those most distinguished were most decided in their reprobation 
of the broad principle of exclusion and prohibition. Upon the 
truth of this representation, as matter of fact, I supposed there 
eould not be two opinions among those who had observed the 
progress of political sentiment in other countries, and were ac- 
quainted with its present state. In this respect, however, it 
would seem that I was greativ mistaken. We have heard it 
again and again declared, that the English government still ad- 
heres, with immovable firmness, to its old doctrines of prohibi- 
tion; that although journalists, theorists, and scientific writers 
advance other doctrines, yet the practical men, the legislators, 
the government of the country, are too wise to follow them. 
It has even been most sagaciously hinted, that the promulga- 
tion of liberal opinions on these subjects is intended only to de- 
lude other governments, to cajole them into the folly of liberal 
ideas, while England retains to herself all the benefits of the ad- 
mirable old system of prohibition. We have heard from Mr, 
Speaker a warm commendation of the complex mechanism of 
this system. ‘The British empire, it is said, is, in the first place, 
to be protected against the rest of the world; then the British 
Isles against the colonies; next, the isles respectively against 
each other, England herself, as the heart of the empire, being 
protected most of all, and against all. 

Truly, Sir, it appears to me that Mr. Speaker’s imagination 
has seen system, and order, and beauty, in that which is much 
more justly considered as the result of ignorance, partiality, or 
violence. ‘This part of English legislation has resulted, partly 
from considering Ireland as a conquered country, partly from 
the want of a complete union, even with Scotland, and partly 
from the narrow views of colonial regulation, which in early and 
uninformed periods influenced the European states. 

Nothing, I imagine, would strike the public men of England 
more singularly, than to find gentlemen of real information and 
much weight in the councils of this country expressing senti- 


108 THE TARIFF. 


ments like these, in regard to the existing state of these English 
laws. I have never said, indeed, that prohibitory laws do not 
exist in England; we all know they do; but the question is, 
Does she owe her prosperity and greatness to these laws? 
I venture to say, that such is not the opinion of public men 
now in England, and the continuance of the laws, even without 
any alteration, would not be evidence that their opinion is dif- 
ferent from what I have represented it; because the laws hay- 
ing existed long, and great interests having been built up on 
the faith of them, they cannot now be repealed without great 
and overwhelming inconvenience. Because a thing has been 
wrongly done, it does not therefore follow that it can now be 
undone; and this is the reason, as I understand it, for which 
exclusion, prohibition, and monopoly are suffered to remain in 
any degree in the English system; and for the same reason, it 
will be wise in us to take our measures, on all subjects of this 
kind, with great caution. We may not be able, but at the haz- 
ard of much injury to individuals, hereafter to retrace our steps. 
And yet, whatever is extravagant or unreasonable is not likely 
to endure. ‘There may come a moment of strong reaction; and 
if no moderation be shown in laying on duties, there may be 
as little scruple in taking them off. 

It may be here observed, that there is a broad and marked 
distinction between entire prohibition and reasonable encour- 
agement. It is one thing, by duties or taxes on foreign articles, 
to awaken a home competition in the production of the same ar- 
ticles; it is another thing to remove all competition by a total 
exclusion of the foreign article; and it is quite another thing 
still, by total prohibition, to raise up at home manufactures not 
suited to the climate, the nature of the country, or the state of 
the population. These are substantial distinctions, and although 
it may not be easy in every case to determine which of them 
applies to a given article, yet the distinctions themselves exist, 
and in most cases will be sufficiently clear to indicate the true 
course of policy; and, unless I have greatly mistaken the pre- 
vailing sentiment in the councils of England, it grows every day 
more and more favorable to the diminution of restrictions, and 
to the wisdom of leaving much (I do not say every thing, for 
that would not be true) to the enterprise and the discretion of 
individuals. I should certainly not have taken up the time of 


THE TARIFF. | 109 


the committee to state at any length the opinions of other gov- 
ernments, or of the public men of other countries, upon a sub- 
ject like this; but an occasional remark made by me the other 
day, having been so directly controverted, especially by Mr. 
Speaker, in his observations yesterday, I must take occasion to 
refer to some proofs of what I have stated. 

What, then, is the state of English opinion? Every body 
knows that, after the termination of the late European war, 
there came a time of great pressure in England. Since her ex- 
ample has been quoted, let it be asked in what mode her gov- 
ernment sought relief. Did it aim to maintain artificial and 
unnatural prices? Did it maintain a swollen and extravagant 
paper circulation? Did it carry further the laws of prohibition 
and exclusion? Did it draw closer the cords of colonial re- 
straint? No, Sir, but precisely the reverse. Instead of relying 
on legislative contrivances and artificial devices, it trusted to the 
enterprise and industry of the people, which it sedulously sought 
to excite, not by imposing restraint, but by removing it, wher- 
ever its removal was practicable. In May, 1820, the attention of 
the government having been much turned to the state of foreign 
trade, a distinguished member* of the House of Peers brought 
forward a Parliamentary motion upon that subject, followed 
by an ample discussion and a full statement of his own opin- 
ions. In the course of his remarks, he observed, “that there 
ought to be no prohibitory duties, as such; for that it was evi 
dent, that, where a manufacture could not be carried on, 01 a 
production raised, but under the protection of a prohibitory duty, 
that manufacture, or that produce, could not be brought to mar- 
ket but at a loss. In his opinion, the name of strict probibition 
might, therefore, in commerce, be got rid of altogether; but he 
did not see the same objection to protecting duties, which, while 
they admitted of the introduction of commodities from abroad 
similar to those which we ourselves manufactured, placed them 
so much on a level as to allow a competition between them.” 
“ No axiom,” he added, “ was more true than this: that it was 
by growing what the territory of a country could grow most 
cheaply, and by receiving from other countries what it could not 
produce except at too great an expense, that the greatest degree 


* Lord Lansdowne. 
VOL. III. 10 


110 THE TARIFF. 


of happiness was to be communicated to the greatest extent of 
population.” 

In assenting to the motion, the first minister* of the crown 
expressed his own opinion of the great advantage resulting from 
unrestricted freedom of trade. “ Of the soundness of that gen- 
eral principle,” he observed, “I can entertain no doubt. I can 
entertain no doubt of what would have been the great advan- 
tages to the civilized world, if the system of unrestricted trade 
had been acted upon by every nation from the earliest period of 
its commercial intercourse with its neighbors. If to those ad- 
vantages there could have been any exceptions, I am persuaded 
that they would have been but few; and I am also persuaded 
that the cases to which they would have referred would not 
have been, in themselves, connected with the trade and com- 
merce of England. But we are now in a situation in which, I 
will not say that a reference to the principle of unrestricted 
trade can be of no use, because such a reference may correct 
erroneous reasoning, but in which itis impossible for us, or for 
any country in the world but the United States of America, to 
act unreservedly on that principle. ‘The commercial regulations 
of the European world have been long established, and cannot 
suddenly be departed from.” Having supposed a proposition to 
be made to England by a foreign state for free commerce and 
intercourse, and an unrestricted exchange of agricultural products 
and of manufactures, he proceeds to observe: “ It would be im- 
possible to accede to such a proposition. We have risen to our 
present greatness under a different system. ‘Some suppose that 
we have risen in consequence of that system; others, of whom I 
am one, believe that we have risen in spite of that system. But, 
whichever of these hypotheses be true, certain it is that we have 
risen under a very different system than that of free and unre- 
stricted trade. It is utterly impossible, with our debt and taxa- 
tion, even if they were but half their existing amount, that we 
can suddenly adopt the system of free trade.” 

Lord Ellenborough, in the same debate, said, “that he attrib- 
uted the general distress then existing in Europe to the regula- 
tions that had taken place since the destruction of the French — 
power. Most of the states on the Continent had surrounded 


* Lord Liverpool 


THE TARIFF. 111 


themselves as with walls of btass, to inhibit intercourse with 
other states. Intercourse was prohibited, even in districts of the 
same state, as was the case in Austria and Sardinia. Thus, 
though the taxes on the people had been lightened, the severity 
of their condition had been increased. He believed that the 
discontent which pervaded most parts of Europe, and especially 
Germany, was more owing to commercial restrictions than tu 
any theoretical doctrines on government; and that a free com- 
munication among them would do more to restore tranquillity, 
than any other step that could be adopted. He objected to all 
attempts to frustrate the benevolent intentions of Providence, 
which had given to various countries various wants, in order 
to bring them together. He objected to it as anti-social; he 
objected to it, as making commerce the means of  barbariz- 
ing, instead of enlightening, nations. The state of the trade 
with France was most disgraceful to both countries; the two 
greatest civilized nations of the world, placed at a distance of 
scarcely twenty miles from each other, had contrived, by their 
artificial regulations, to reduce their commerce with each other 
to a mere nullity.” Every member speaking on this occasion 
agreed in the general sentiments favorable to unrestricted inter- 
course, which had thus been advanced; one of them remarking, 
at the conclusion of the debate, that “the principles of free 
trade, which he was happy to see so fully recognized, were of 
the utmost consequence; for, though, in the present circum- 
stances of the country, a free trade was unattainable, yet their 
task hereafter was to approximate to it. Considering the preju- 
dices and interests which were opposed to the recognition of 
that principle, it was no small indication of the firmness and 
liberality of government to have so fully conceded it.” 

Sir, we have seen, in the course of this discussion, that several 
gentlemen have expressed their high admiration of the si/k man- 
ufacture of England. Its commendation was begun, I think, 
by the honorable member from Vermont, who sits near me, who 
thinks that that alone gives conclusive evidence of the benefits 
produced by attention to manufactures, inasmuch as it is a great 
source of wealth to the nation, and has amply repaid all the 
cost of its protection. Mr. Speaker’s approbation of this part of 
the English example was still warmer.. Now, Sir, it does so 
happen, that both these gentlemen differ very widely on this 


119 THE TARIFF. 


point from the opinions entertained in England, by persons of 
the first rank, both as to knowledge and power. In the debate 
to which I have already referred, the proposer of the motion 
urged the expediency of providing for the admission of the silks 
of France into England. “ He was aware,” he said, “ that there 
was a poor and industrious body of manufacturers, whose inter- 
ests must suffer by such an arrangement; and therefore he felt 
that it would be the duty of Parliament to provide for the pres- 
ent generation by a large Parliamentary grant. It was con- 
formable to every principle of sound justice to do so, when the 
interests of a particular class were sacrificed to the good of the 
whole.” In answer to these observations, Lord Liverpool said 
that, with reference to several branches of manufactures, time, 
and the change of circumstances, had rendered the system of 
protecting duties merely nominal; and that, in his opinion, if 
all the protecting laws which regarded both the woollen and 
cotton manufactures were to be repealed, no injurious effects 
would thereby be occasioned. “ But,’ he observes, “with re- 
spect to silk, that manufacture in this kingdom is so completely 
artificial, that any attempt to introduce the principles of free 
trade with reference to it might put an end to it altogether. I 
allow that the silk manufacture is not natural to this country. 
L wish we had never had a silk manufactory. I allow that it is 
natural to France; I allow that it might have been better, had 
each country adhered exclusively to that manufacture in which 
each is superior; and had the silks of France been exchanged 
for British cottons. But I must look at things as they are; 
and when I consider the extent of capital, and the immense pop- 
ulation, consisting, I believe, of about fifty thousand persons, en- 
gaged in our silk manufacture, I can only say, that one of the 
few points in which I totally disagree with the proposer of the 
motion is the expediency, under existing circumstances, of hold- 
ing out any idea, that it would be possible to relinquish the silk 
manufacture, and to provide for those who live by it, by Parlia- 
mentary enactment. Whatever objections there may be to the 
continuance of the protecting system, I repeat, that it is impos- 
sible altogether to relinquish it. I may regret that the system 
was ever commenced; but as I cannot recall that act, I musi 
submit to the inconvenience by which it is attended, rather than 
expose the country to evils of greater magnitude.” Let it be re- 


THE TARIFF. 113 


membered, Sir, that these are not the sentiments of a theorist, 
nor the fancies of speculation; but the operative opinions of the 
first minister of England, acknowledged to be one of the ablest 
and most practical statesmen of his country. 

Gentlemen could have hardly been more unfortunate than in 
the selection of the silk manufacture in England as an example 
of the beneficial effects of that system which they would recom- 
mend. It is, in the language which I have quoted, completely 
artificial. It has been sustained by I know not how many laws, 
breaking in upon the plainest principles of general expediency. 
At the last session of Parliament, the manufacturers petitioned 
for the repeal of three or four of these statutes, complaining of 
the vexatious restrictions which they impose on the wages of 
labor; setting forth, that a great variety of orders has from time 
to time been issued by magistrates under the authority of these 
laws, interfering in an oppressive manner with the minutest de- 
tails of the manufacture: such as limiting the number of threads 
to an inch, restricting the widths of many sorts of work, and 
determining the quantity of labor not to be exceeded without 
extra wages; that by the operation of these laws, the rate of 
wages, instead of being left to the recognized principles of regu- 
lation, has been arbitrarily fixed by persons whose ignorance 
renders them incompetent to a just decision; that masters are 
compelled by law to pay an equal price for all work, whether 
well or ill performed; and that they are wholly prevented from 
using improved machinery, it being ordered, that work, in the 
weaving of which machinery is employed, shall be paid precisely 
at the same rate as if done by hand; that these acts have 
frequently given rise to the most vexatious regulations, the un- 
intentional breach of which has subjected manufacturers to ruin- 
ous penalties; and that the introduction of all machinery being 
prevented, by which labor might be cheapened, and the manu- 
facturers being compelled to pay at a fixed price, under all 
circumstances, they are unable to afford employment to their 
workmen, in times of stagnation of trade, and are compelled 
to stop their looms. And finally, they complain, that, notwith- 
standing these grievances under which they labor, while carrying 
on their manufacture in London, the law still prohibits them, 
while they continue to reside there, from employing any portion 
of their capital in the same business in any cther part of the 


10* 


114 THE TARIFF. 


kingdom, where it might be more beneficially conducted. Now, 
Sir, absurd as these laws must appear to be to every man, the 
attempt to repeal them did not, as far as I recollect, altogether 
succeed. The weavers were too numerous, their interests too 
great, or their prejudices too strong; and this notable instance 
of protection and monopoly still exists, to be lamented in Eng- 
land with as much sincerity as it seems to be admired here. 

In order further to show the prevailing sentiment of the Eng- 
lish government, I would refer to a report of a select committee 
of the House of Commons, at the head of which was the Vice- 
President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Wallace), in July, 1820. 
“The time,” say that committee, “when monopolies could be 
successfully supported, or would be patiently endured, either in 
respect to subjects against subjects, or particular countries 
against the rest of the world, seems to have passed away. Com- 
* merce, to continue undisturbed and secure, must be, as it was 
intended to be, a source of reciprocal amity between nations, 
and an interchange of productions to promote the industry, the 
wealth, and the happiness of mankind.” In moving for the re- 
appointment of the committee in February, 1823, the same 
gentleman said: “ We must also get rid of that feeling of ap- 
propriation which exhibited itself in a disposition to produce 
every thing necessary for our own consumption, and to render 
ourselves independent of the world. No notion could be more 
‘absurd or mischievous; it led, even in peace, to an animosity and 
rancor greater than existed in time of war. Undoubtedly there 
would be great prejudices to combat, both in this country and 
elsewhere, in the attempt to remove the difficulties which are 
most obnoxious. It would be impossible to forget the attention 
which was in some respects due to the present system of protec- 
tions, although that attention ought certainly not to be carried 
beyond the absolute necessity of the case.” And in a second 
report of the committee, drawn by the same gentleman, in that 
part of it which proposes a diminution of duties on timber from 
the North of Europe, and the policy of giving a legislative pref- 
erence to the importation of such timber in the log, and a dis- 
couragement of the importation of deals, it is stated that the 
committee reject this policy, because, among other reasons, “it 
is founded on a principle of exclusion, which they are most 
averse to see brought into operation, in any new instance, with- 


THE TARIFF. 115 


out the warrant of some evident and great political expediency.” 
And on many subsequent occasions the same gentleman has 
taken occasion to observe, that he differed from those who 
thought that manufactures could not flourish without restrictions 
on trade; that old prejudices of that sort were dying away, and 
that more liberal and just sentiments were taking their place. 

‘These sentiments appear to have been followed by important 
legal provisions, calculated to remove restrictions and prohibi- 
tions where they were most severely felt; that is to say, in sev- 
eral branches of navigation and trade. They have relaxed their 
colonial system, they have opened the ports of their islands, and 
have done away the restriction which limited the trade of the 
colony to the mother country. Colonial products can now be 
carried directly from the islands to any part of Europe; and it 
may not be improbable, considering our own high duties on 
spirits, that that article may be exchanged hereafter by the Kng- 
lish West India colonies directly for the timber and deals of the 
Baltic. It may be added that Mr. Lowe, whom the gentleman 
has cited, says, that nobody supposes that the three great staples 
of English manufactures, cotton, woollen, and hardware, are 
benefited by any existing protecting duties; and that one object 
of all these protecting laws is usually overlooked, and that is, 
that they have been intended to reconcile the various interests to 
taxation; the corn law, for example, being designed as some 
equivalent to the agricultural interest for the burden of tithes 
and of poor-rates. 

In fine, Sir, I think it is clear, that, if we now embrace the 
system of prohibitions and restrictions, we shall show an aflec- 
tion for what others have discarded, and be attempting to orna- 
ment ourselves with cast-off apparel. 

Sir, | should not have gone into this prolix detail of opinions 
from any consideration of their special importance on the pres- 
ent occasion; but having happened to state that such was the 
actual opinion of the government of England at the present 
time, and the accuracy of this representation having been so 
confidently denied, I have chosen to put the matter beyond 
doubt or cavil, although at the expense of these tedious cita- 
tions I shall have occasion hereafter to refer more particu- 
larly to sundry recent British enactments, by way of showing 
the diligence and spirit with which that government strives to 


116 THE ‘TARIFF. 


sustain its navigating interest, by opening the widest possible 
range to the enterprise of individual adventurers. I repeat, that 
I have not alluded to these examples of a foreign state as being 
fit to control our own policy. In the general principle, I acqui- 
esce. Protection, when carried to the point which is now rec- 
ommended, that is, to entire prohibition, seems to me destruc- 
tive of all commercial intercourse between nations. We are 
urged to adopt the system upon general principles; and what 
would be the consequence of the universal application of such 
a general principle, but that nations would abstain entirely from 
all intercourse with one another? I do not admit the general 
principle; on the contrary, I think freedom of trade to be the 
general principle, and restriction the exception. And it is for 
every state, taking into view its own condition, to judge of the 
propriety, in any case, of making an exception, constantly pre- 
ferring, as I think all wise governments will, not to depart with-. 
out urgent reason from the general rule. 

There is another point in the existing policy of England to 
which I would most earnestly invite the attention of the com- 
mittee; I mean the warehouse system, or what we usually call 
the system of drawback. Very great prejudices appear to me 
to exist with us on that subject. We seem averse to the exten- 
sion of the principle. The English government, on the con- 
trary, appear to have carried it to the extreme of liberality. 
They have arrived, however, at their present opinions and pres- 
ent practice by slow degrees. ‘The transit system was com- 
menced about the year 1803, but the first law was partial and 
limited. It admitted the importation of raw materials for ex- 
portation, but it excluded almost every sort of manufactured 
goods. ‘This was done for the same reason that we propose to 
prevent the transit of Canadian wheat through the United 
States, the fear of aiding the competition of the foreign article 
with our own in foreign markets. Better reflection or more ex- 
perience has induced them to abandon that mode of reasoning, 
and to consider all such means of influencing foreign markets as 
nugatory; since, in the present active and enlightened state of 
the world, nations will supply themselves from the best sources, 
and the true policy of all producers, whether of raw materials or 
of manufactured articles, is, not vainly to endeavor to keep 
other vendors out of the market, but to conquer them in it by 


THE TARIEF. 117 


the quality and the cheapness of their articles. The present 
policy of England, therefore, is to allure the importation of com- 
modities into England, there to be deposited in English ware- 
houses, thence to be exported in assorted cargoes, and thus en- 
abling her to carry on a general export trade to all quarters of 
the globe. Articles of all kinds, with the single exception of 
tea, may be brought into England, from any part of the world, 
in foreign as well as British ships, there warehoused, and again 
exported, at the pleasure of the owner, without the payment of 
any duty or government charge whatever. 

While Iam upon this subject, I would take notice also of the 
recent proposition in the English Parliament to abolish the tax 
on imported wool; and it is observable that those who support 
this proposition give the same reasons that have been offered here, 
within the last week, against the duty which we propose on the 
same article. They say that their manufacturers require a cheap 
and coarse wool, for the supply of the Mediterranean and Levant 
trade, and that, without a more free admission of the wool of the 
Continent, that trade will all fall into the hands of the Germans 
and ltalians, who will carry it on through Leghorn and ‘Trieste. 
While there is this duty on foreign wool to protect the wool- 
erowers of England, there is, on the other hand, a prohibition 
on the exportation of the native article in aid of the manufactur- 
ers. ‘The opinion seems to be gaining strength, that the true 
policy is to abolish both. 

Laws have long existed in England preventing the emigra- 
tion of artisans and the exportation of machinery; but the policy 
of these, also, has become doubted, and an inquiry has been in- 
stituted in Parliament into the expediency of repealing them. 
As to the emigration of artisans, say those who disapprove the 
laws, if that were desirable, no law could effect it; and as to the 
exportation of machinery, let us make it and export it as we 
would any other commodity. If France is determined to spin 
and weave her own cotton, let us, if we may, still have the ben- 
efit of furnishing the machinery. 

I have stated these things, Sir, to show what seems to be the 
general tone of thinking and reasoning on these subjects in that 
country, the example of which has been so much pressed upon 
us. Whether the present policy of England be right or wrong, 
wise or unwise, it cannot, as it seems’ clearly to me, be quoted 


118 THE TARIFF. 


as an authority for carrying further the restrictive and exclusive 
system, either in regard to manufactures or trade. To reéstab- 
lish a sound currency, to meet at once the shock, tremendous as 
it was, of the fall of prices, to enlarge her capacity for foreign 
trade, to open wide the field of individual enterprise and compe- 
tition, and to say plainly and distinctly that the country must 
relieve itself from the embarrassments which it felt, by economy, 
frugality, and renewed efforts of enterprise, — these appear to be 
the general outline of the policy which England has pursued. 


Mr. Chairman, I will now proceed to say a few words upon a 
topic, but for the introduction of which into this debate I should 
not have given the committee on this occasion the trouble of 
hearing me. Some days ago, I believe it was when we were set- 
tling the controversy between the oil-merchants and the tallow- 
chandlers, the balance of trade made its appearance in debate, and 
I must confess, Sir, that I spoke of it, or rather spoke to it, some- 
what freely and irreverently. I believe I used the hard names 
which have been imputed to me, and I did it simply for the pur- 
pose of laying the spectre, and driving it back to its tomb. Cer- 
tainly, Sir, when I called the old notion on this subject non 
sense, I did not suppose that I should offend any one, unless the 
dead should happen to hear me. All the living generation, I 
took it for granted, would think the term very properly applied. 
In this, however, I was mistaken. ‘The dead and the living rise 
up together to call me to account, and I must defend myself. as 
well as I am able. 

Let us inquire, then, Sir, what is meant by an unfavorable 
balance of trade, and what the argument is, drawn from that 
source. By an unfavorable balance of trade, I understand, is 
meant that state of things in which importation exceeds expor- 
tation. ‘To apply it to our own case, if the value of goods im- 
ported exceed the value of those exported, then the balance of 
trade is said to be against us, inasmuch as we have run in debt 
to the amount of this difference. ‘Therefore it is said, that, if a 
nation continue long in a commerce like this, it must be ren- 
dered absolutely bankrupt. It is in the condition of a man that 
buys more than he sells; and how can such a traffic be main- 
tained without ruin? Now, Sir, the whole fallacy of this argu- 
ment consists in supposing, that, whenever the value of imports 


*. 


THE TARIFF. 119 


exceeds that of exports, a debt is necessarily created to the ex- 
tent of the difference, whereas, ordinarily, the import is no more 
than the result of the export, augmented in value by the labor 
of transportation. ‘The excess of imports over exports, in truth, 
usually shows the gains, not the losses, of trade; or, in a coun- 
try that not only buys and sells goods, but employs ships in car- 
rying goods also, it shows the profits of commerce, and the earn- 
ings of navigation. Nothing is more certain than that, in the 
usual course of things, and taking a series of years together, the 
value of our imports is the aggregate of our exports and our 
freights. If the value of commodities imported in a given in- 
stance did not exceed the value of the outward cargo, with which 
they were purchased, then it would be clear to every man’s com- 
mon sense, that the voyage had not been profitable. If such com- 
modities fell far short in value of the cost of the outward cargo, 
then the voyage would be a very losing one; and yet it would 
present exactly that state of things, which, according to the no- 
tion of a balance of trade, can alone indicate a prosperous com- 
merce. On the other hand, if the return cargo were found to be 
worth much more than the outward cargo, while the merchant, 
having paid for the goods exported, and all the expenses of the 
voyage, finds a handsome sum yet in his hands, which he calls 
profits, the balance of trade is still against him, and, whatever he 
may think of it, he is ina very bad way. Although one indi- 
vidual or all individuals gain, the nation loses; while all its cit- 
izens grow rich, the country grows poor. ‘This is the doctrine 
of the balance of trade. 

Aliow me, Sir, to give an instance tending to show how un- 
accountably individuals deceive themselves, and imagine them- 
selves to be somewhat rapidly mending their condition, while 
they ought to be persuaded that, by that infallible standard, the 
balance of trade, they are on the high road to ruin. Some years 
ago,in better times than the present, a ship left one of the tuwns 
of New England with 70,000 specie dollars. She proceeded to 
Mocha, on the Red Sea, and there laid out these dollars in cof- 
fee, drugs, spices, and other articles procured in that market. 
With this new cargo she proceeded to Europe; two thirds of 
it were sold in Holland for § 130,000, which the ship brought 
back, and placed in the same bank from the vaults of which she 
had taken her original outfit. ‘The other third was sent to the 


120 THE TARIFF. 


ports of the Mediterranean, and produced a return of $ 25,000 
in specie, and $15,000 in Italian merchandise. These sums 
together make $170,000 imported, which is $100,000 more 
than was exported, and is therefore proof of an unfavorable bal- 
ance of trade, to that amount, in this adventure. We should 
find no great difficulty, Sir, in paying off our balances, if this 
were the nature of them all. 

The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that all these obsolete and exploded 
notions had their origin in very mistaken ideas of the true nature 
of commerce. Commerce is not a gambling among nations for a 
stake, to be won by some and lost by others. It has not the ten- 
dency necessarily to impoverish one of the parties to it, while it 
enriches the other; all parties gain, all parties make profits, all 
parties grow rich, by the operations of just and liberal commerce. 
If the world had but one clime and but one soil; if all men had 
the same wants and the same means, on the spot of their exist- 
ence, to gratify those wants, — then, indeed, what one obtained 
from the other by exchange would injure one party in the same 
degree that it benefited the other; then, indeed, there would be 
some foundation for the balance of trade. But Providence has 
disposed our lot much more kindly. We inhabit a various earth. 
We have reciprocal wants, and reciprocal means for gratifying 
one another’s wants. ‘This is the true origin of commerce, which 
is nothing more than an exchange of equivalents, and, from the 
rude barter of its primitive state, to the refined and complex 
condition in which we see it, its principle is uniformly the same; 
its only object being, in every stage, to produce that exchange of 
commodities between individuals and between nations which 
shall conduce to the advantage and to the happiness of both. 
Commerce between nations has the same essential character 
as commerce between individuals, or between parts of the same 
nation. Cannot two individuals make an interchange of com- 
modities which shall prove beneficial to both, or in which the 
balance of trade shall be in favor of both? If not, the tailor and 
the shoemaker, the farmer and the smith, have hitherto very 
much misunderstood their own interests. And with regard to 
the internal trade of a country, in which the same rule would 
apply as between nations, do we ever speak of such an inter- 
course as prejudicial to one side because it is useful to the oth- 
er? Do we ever hear that, because the intercourse between 


THE TARIFF. 121 


New York and Albany is advantageous to one of those places, 
it must therefore be ruinous to the other ? 

May I be allowed, Sir, to read a passage on this subject from 
the observations of a gentleman, in my opinion one of the most 
clear and sensible writers and speakers of the age upon subjects 
of this sort?* “'There is no political question on which the 
prevalence of false principles is so general, as in what relates to 
the nature of commerce and to the pretended balance of trade; 
and there are few which have led to a greater number of prac- 
tical mistakes, attended with consequences extensively prejudi- 
cial to the happiness of mankind. In this country, our Parlia- 
mentary proceedings, our public documents, and the works of 
several able and popular writers, have combined to propagate 
the impression, that we are indebted for much of our riches to 
what is called the balance of trade.” “Our true policy would 
surely be to profess, as the object and guide of our commercial 
system, that which every man who has studied the subject must 
know to be the true principle of commerce, the interchange of 
reciprocal and equivalent benefit. We may rest assured that it 
is not in the nature of commerce to enrich one party at the ex- 
pense of the other. ‘This is a purpose at which, if it were prac- 
ticable, we ought not to aim; and which, if we aimed at, we 
could not accomplish.” ‘These remarks, I believe, Sir, were writ- 
ten some ten or twelve years ago. ‘They are in perfect accord- 
ance with the opinions advanced in more elaborate treatises, 
and now that the world has returned to a state of peace, and 
commerce has resumed its natural channels, and different na- 
tions are enjoying, or seeking to enjoy, their respective portions 
of it, all see the justness of these ideas; all see, that, in this day 
of knowledge and of peace, there can be no commerce between 
nations but that which shall benefit all who are parties to it. 

If it were necessary, Mr. Chairman, I might ask the attention of 
the committee to refer to a document before us, on this subject of 
the balance of trade. It will be seen by reference to the accounts, 
that, in the course of the last year, our total export to Holland 
exceeded two millions and a half; our total import from the same 
country was but seven hundred thousand dollars. Now, can any 
man be wild enough to make any inference from this as to the 


* Mr. Huskisson, President of the English Board of Trade. 
VOL. Ill. 11 


129 THE TARIFF. 


gain or loss of our trade with Holland for that year? Our trade 
with Russia for the same year produced a balance the other way ; 
our import being two millions, and our export but half a million. 
But this has no more tendency to show the Russian trade a los- 
ing trade, than the other statement has to show that the Dutch 
trade has been a gainful one. Neither of them, by itself, proves 
any thing. 

Springing out of this notion of a balance of trade, there 
is another idea, which has been much dwelt upon in the 
course of this debate; that is, that we ought not to buy of na- 
tions who do not buy of us; for example, that the Russian trade 
is a trade disadvantageous to the country, and ought to be dis- 
couraged, because, in the ports of Russia, we buy more than we 
sell. Now allow me to observe, in the first place, Sir, that we 
have no account showing how much we do sell in the ports of 
Russia. Our official returns show us only what is the amount 
of our direct trade with her ports. But then we all know that 
the proceeds of another portion of our exports go to the same 
market, though indirectly. We send our own products, for ex- 
ample, to Cuba, or to Brazil; we there exchange them for the 
sugar and the coffee of those countries, and these articles we 
carry to St. Petersburg, and there sell them. Again; our ex- 
ports to Holland and Hamburg are connected directly or indi- 
rectly with our imports from Russia. What difference does it 
make, in sense or reason, whether a cargo of iron be bought at 
St. Petersburg, by the exchange of a cargo of tobacco, or wheth- 
er the tobacco has been sold on the way, in a better market, in 
a port of Holland, the money remitted to England, and the iron 
paid for by a bill on London? 'There might indeed have been 
an augmented freight, there might have been some saving of 
commissions, if tobacco had been in brisk demand in the Rus- 
sian market. But still there is nothing to show that the whole 
voyage may not have been highly profitable. That depends 
upon the original cost of the article here, the amount of freight 
and insurance to Holland, the price obtained there, the rate of 
exchange between Holland and England, the expense, then, of 
proceeding to St. Petersburg, the price of iron there, the rate of 
exchange between that place and England, the amount of freight 
and insurance at home, and, finally, the value of the iron when 
brought to our own market. These are the calculations which 


THE TARIFF. 123 


determine the fortune of the adventure; and nothing can be 
judged of it, one way or the other, by the relative state of our 
imports or exports with Holland, England, or Russia. 

I would not be understood to deny, that it may often be our 
interest to cultivate a trade with countries that require most of 
such commodities as we can furnish, and which are capable 
also of directly supplying our own wants. ‘This is the original 
and the simplest form of all commerce, and is no doubt highly 
beneficial. Some countries are so situated, that commerce, in 
this original form, or something near it, may be all that they 
can, without considerable inconvenience, carry on. Our trade, 
for example, with Madeira and the Western Islands has been 
useful to the country, as furnishing a demand for some portion 
of our agricultural products, which probably could not have 
been bought had we not received their products in return. 
Countries situated still farther from the great marts and high- 
ways of the commercial world may afford still stronger instan- 
ces of the necessity and utility of conducting commerce on the 
original principle of barter, without much assistance from the 
operations of credit and exchange. All I would be understood 
to say is, that it by no means follows that we can carry on noth- 
ing but a losing trade with a country from which we receive 
more of her products than she receives of ours. Since | was 
supposed, the other day, in speaking upon this subject, to ad- 
Vance opinions which not only this country ought to reject, 
but which also other countries, and those the most distinguished 
for skill and success in commercial intercourse, do reject, I will 
ask leave to refer again to the discussion which I first men- 
tioned in the English Parliament, relative to the foreign trade 
of that country. “ With regard,” says the mover™* of the propo- 
sition, “to the argument employed against renewing our inter- 
course with the North of HKurope, namely, that those who sup- 
plied us with timber from that quarter would not receive British 
manufactures in return, it appeared to him futile and unground- 
ed. If they did not send direct for our manufactures at home, 
they would send for them to Leipsic and other fairs of Germa- 
ny. Were not the Russian and Polish merchants purchasers 
there to a great amount? But he would never admit the prin- 


* The Marquess of Lansdowne. 


124 THE TARIFF. 


ciple, that a trade was not profitable because we were obliged 
to carry it on with the precious metals, or that we ought to re- 
nounce it, because our manufactures were not received by the 
foreign nation in return for its produce. Whatever we received 
must be paid for in the produce of our land and labor, directly 
or circuitously, and he was glad to have the noble Earl’s* 
marked concurrence in this principle.” 

Referring ourselves again, Sir, to the analogies of common 
life, no one would say that a farmer or a mechanic should buy 
only where he can do so by the exchange of his own produce, or 
of his own manufacture. Such exchange may be often conven- 
ient; and, on the other hand, the cash purchase may be often 
more convenient. It is the same in the intercourse of nations. 
Indeed, Mr. Speaker has placed this argument on very clear 
erounds. It was said, in the early part of the debate, that, if we 
cease to import English cotton fabrics, England will no long- 
er continue to purchase our cotton. ‘To this Mr. Speaker re- 
plied, with great force and justice, that, as she must have cotton 
in large quantities, she will buy the article where she can find it 
best and cheapest; and that it would be quite ridiculous in her, 
manufacturing as she still would be, for her own vast consump- 
tion and the consumption of millions in other countries, to reject 
our uplands because we had learned to manufacture a part of 
them for ourselves. Would it not be equally ridiculous in us, if 
the commodities of Russia were both cheaper and better suited 
to our wants than could be found elsewhere, to abstain from 
commerce with her, because she will not receive in return other 
commodities which we have to sell, but which she has no occa- 
sion to buy? 


Intimately connected, Sir, with this topic, is another which 
has been brought into the debate; I mean the evil so much com- 
plained of, the exportation of specie. We hear gentlemen im- 
puting the loss of market at home to a want of money, and this 
want of money to the exportation of the precious metals. We 
hear the India and China trade denounced, as a commerce con- 
ducted on our side, in a great measure, with gold and silver. 
These opinions, Sir, are clearly void of all just foundation, and 


* Lord Liverpool. , 


THE TARIFF. 125 


we cannot too soon get rid of them. ‘There are no shallower 
reasoners than those political and commercial writers who would 
represent it to be the only true and gainful end of commerce, to 
accumulate the precious metals. 'These are articles of use, and 
articles of merchandise, with this additional circumstance be- 
longing to them, that they are made, by the general consent 
of nations, the standard by which the value of all other mer- 
chandise is to be estimated. In regard to weights and meas- 
ures, something drawn from external nature is made a com- 
mon standard, for the purposes of general convenience; and 
this is precisely the office performed by the precious metals, 
in addition to those uses to which, as metals, they are capa- 
ble of being applied. ‘There may be of these too much or | 
too little in a country at a particular time, as there may be 
of any other articles. When the market is overstocked with 
them, as it often is, their exportation becomes as proper and as 
useful as that of other commodities, under similar circumstan- 
ces. We need no more repine, when the dollars which have 
been brought here from South America are despatched to other 
countries, than when coffee and sugar take the same direc- 
tion. We often deceive ourselves, by attributing to a scar- 
city of money that which is the result of other causes. In the 
course of this debate, the honorable member from Pennsylvania* 
has represented the country as full of every thing but money. 
But this I take to be a mistake. ‘The agricultural products, so 
abundant in Pennsylvania, will not, he says, sell for money; but 
they will sell for money as quick as for any other article which 
happens to be in demand. ‘They will sell for money, for exam- 
ple, as easily as for coffee or for tea, at the prices which properly 
belong to those articles. ‘The mistake lies in imputing that to 
want of money which arises from want of demand. Men do 
not buy wheat because they have money, but because they 
want wheat. ‘To decide whether money be plenty or not, that 
is, whether there be a large portion of capital unemployed or 
not, when the currency of a country is metallic, we must look, 
not only to the prices of commodities, but also to the rate of 
interest. A low rate of interest, a facility of obtaining money 
on loans, a disposition to invest in permanent stocks, all of 


* Mr. Tod 
Lins 


126 . THE. TARIFF. 


which are proofs that money is plenty, may nevertheless often 
denote a state not of the highest prosperity. ‘They may, and 
often do, show a want of employment for capital; and the ac- 
cumulation of specie shows the same thing. We have no occa- 
sion for the precious metals as money, except for the purposes 
of circulation, or rather of sustaining a safe paper circulation. 
And whenever there is a prospect of a profitable investment 
abroad, all the gold and silver, except what these purposes re- 
quire, will be exported. For the same reason, if a demand exist 
abroad for sugar and coffee, whatever amount of those articles 
might exist in the country, beyond the wants of its own con- 
sumption, would be sent abroad to meet that demand. 

Besides, Sir, how should it ever occur to any body, that we 
should continue to export gold and silver, if we did not continue 
to import them also? If a vessel take our own products to the 
Havana, or elsewhere, exchange them for dollars, proceed to Chi- 
na, exchange them for silks and teas, bring these last to the ports 
of the Mediterranean, sell them there for dollars, and return to the 
United States; this would be a voyage resulting in the importa- 
tion of the precious metals. But if she had returned from Cuba, 
and the dollars obtained there had been shipped direct from the 
United States to China, the China goods sold in Holland, and 
the proceeds brought home in the hemp and iron of Russia, this 
would be a voyage in which they were exported. Yet every 
body sees that both might be equally beneficial to the individ- 
ual and to the public. I believe, Sir, that, in point of fact, we 
have enjoyed great benefit in our trade with India and China, 
from the liberty of going from place to place all over the world, 
without being obliged in the mean time to return home, a liberty 
not heretofore enjoyed by the private traders of England, in 
regard to India and China. Suppose the American ship to be 
at Brazil, for example; she could proceed with her dollars direct 
to India, and, in return, could distribute her cargo in all the 
various ports of Europe or America; while an English ship, if 
a private trader, being at Brazil, must first return to England,. 
and then could only proceed in the direct line from England to 
India. ‘This advantage our countrymen have not been back: 
ward to improve; and in the debate to which I have already so 
often referred, it was stated, not without some complaint of the 
inconvenience of exclusion, and the natural sluggishness of mo- 


THE TARIFF. 127 


nopoly, that American ships were at that moment fitting out in 
the ‘’hames, to supply France, Holland, and other countries. on 
the Continent, with tea; while the East India Company would 
not do this of themselves, nor allow any of their fellow-country 
men to do it for them. 


There is yet another subject, Mr. Chairman, upon which I 
would wish to say something, if I might presume upon the con- 
tinued patience of the committee. We hear sometimes in the 
House, and continually out of it, of the rate of exchange, as 
being one proof that we are on the downward road to ruin. 
Mr. Speaker himself has adverted to that topic, and I am afraid 
that his authority may give credit to opinions clearly unfounded, 
and which lead to very false and erroneous conclusions. Sir, 
let us see what the facts are. Exchange on England has re- 
cently risen one or one and a half per cent., partly owing, per- 
haps, to the introduction of this bill into Congress. Before this 
recent rise, and for the last six months, I understand its average 
may have been about seven and a half per cent. advance. Now, 
supposing this to be the real, and not merely, as it is, the nomi- 
nal, par of exchange between us and England, what would it 
prove? Nothing, except that funds were wanted by American 
citizens in England for commercial operations, to be carried on 
either in England or elsewhere. It would not necessarily show 
that we were indebted to England; for, if we had occasion to 
pay debts in Russia or Holland, funds in England would natu- 
rally enough be required for such a purpose. ven if it did 
prove that a balance was due England at the moment, it would 
have no tendency to explain to us whether our commerce with 
England had been profitable or unprofitable. 

But it is not true, in point of fact, that the real price of ex- 
change is seven and a half per cent. advance, nor, indeed, that 
there is at the present moment any advance at all. That is to 
say, it is not true that merchants will give such an advance, or 
any advance, for money in England, beyond what they would give 
for the same amount, in the same currency, here. It will strike 
every one who reflects upon it, that, if there were a real differ- 
ence of seven and a half per cent., money would be immediately 
shipped to England; because the expense of transportation 
would be far less than that difference. Or commodities of trade 


128 THE: TARIFF; 


would be shipped to Europe, and the proceeds remitted to Eng- 
land. If it could so happen, that American merchants should 
be willing to pay ten per cent. premium for money in England, 
or, in other words, that a real difference to that amount in the 
exchange should exist, its effects would be immediately seen in 
new shipments of our own commodities to Europe, because this 
state of things would create new motives. A cargo of tobacco, 
for example, might sell at Amsterdam for the same price as be- 
fore; but if its proceeds, when remitted to London, were ad- 
vanced, as they would be in such case, ten per cent. by the state 
of exchange, this would be so much added to the price, and 
would operate therefore as a motive for the exportation; and in 
this way national balances are, and always will be, adjusted. 

To form any accurate idea of the true state of exchange be- 
tween two countries, we must look at their currencies, and 
compare the quantities of gold and silver which they may re- 
spectively represent. This usually explains the state of the ex- 
changes; and this will satisfactorily account for the apparent 
advance now existing on bills drawn on England. The English 
standard of value is gold; with us that office is performed by 
gold, and by silver also, at a fixed relation to each other. But 
our estimate of silver is rather higher, in proportion to gold, than 
most nations give it; it is higher, especially, than in England, at 
the present moment. The consequence is, that silver, which re- 
mains a legal currency with us, stays here, while the gold has 
gone abroad; verifying the universal truth, that, if two currencies 
be allowed to exist, of different values, that which is cheapest will 
fill up the whole circulation. For as much gold as will suffice 
to pay here a debt of a given amount, we can buy in England 
more silver than would be necessary to pay the same debt here; 
and from this difference in the value of silver arises wholly or in 
a great measure the present apparent difference in exchange. 
Spanish dollars sell now in England for four shillings and nine 
pence sterling per ounce, equal to one dollar and six cents. By 
our standard the same ounce is worth one dollar and sixteen 
cents, being a difference of about nine per cent. ‘The true par » 
of exchange, therefore, is nine per cent. If a merchant here pay 
one hundred Spanish dollars for a bill on England, at nominal 
par, in sterling money, that is for a bill of £22 10s., the pro- 
ceeds of this bill, when paid in England in the legal currency, 


THE TARIFF. 129 


will there purchase, at the present price of silver, one hundred 
and nine Spanish dollars. Therefore, if the nominal advance 
on English bills do not exceed nine per cent., the real exchange 
is not. against this country; in other words, it does not show 
that there is any pressing or particular occasion for the remit- 
tance of funds to England. 

As little can be inferred from the occasional transfer of United 
States stock to England. Considering the interest paid on our 
stocks, the entire stability of our credit, and the accumulation of 
capital in England, it is not at all wonderful that investments 
should occasionally be made in our funds. As a sort of coun- 
tervailing fact, it may be stated that English stocks are now 
actually held in this country, though probably not to any con- 
siderable amount. 


I will now proceed, Sir, to state some objections of a more 
general nature, to the course of Mr. Speaker’s observations. 

He seems to me to argue the question as if all domestic in- 
dustry were confined to the production of manufactured articles ; 
as if the employment of our own capital and our own labor, in 
the occupations of commerce and navigation, were not as em- 
phatically domestic industry as any other occupation. Some 
other gentlemen, in the course of the debate, have spoken of the 
price paid for every foreign manufactured article as so much 
given for the encouragement of foreign labor, to the prejudice of 
our own. But is not every such article the product of our own 
labor as truly as if we had manufactured it ourselves? Our 
labor has earned it, and paid the price for it. It is so much 
added to the stock of national wealth. If the commodity were 
dollars, nobody would doubt the truth of this remark; and it is 
precisely as correct in its application to any other commodity as 
to silver. One man makes a yard of cloth at home; another 
raises agricultural products and buys a yard of imported cloth. 
Both these are equally the earnings of domestic industry, and 
the only questions that arise in the case are two: the first is, 
which is the best mode, under all the circumstances, of obtain- 
ing the article; the second is, how far this first question is 
proper to be decided by government, and how far it is proper to 
be left to individual discretion. There is no foundation for the 
distinction which attributes to certain employments the peculiar 


130 THE TARIFF. 


appellation of American industry ; and it is, in my judgment, ex 
tremely unwise to attempt such discriminations. 

We are asked, What nations have ever attained eminent 
prosperity without encouraging manufactures? I may ask, 
What nation ever reached the like prosperity without promot- 
ing foreign trade? I regard these interests as closely con- 
nected, and am of opinion that it should be our aim to cause 
them to flourish together. I know it would be very easy to 
promote manufactures, at least for a time, but probably for a 
short time only, if we might act in disregard of other interests. 
We could cause a sudden transfer of capital, and a violent 
change in the pursuits of men. We could exceedingly benefit 
some classes by these means. But what, then, becomes of the 
interests of others? ‘The power of collecting revenue by duties 
on imports, and the habit of the government of collecting almost 
its whole revenue in that mode, will enable us, without exceed- 
ing the bounds of moderation, to give great advantages to those 
classes of manufactures which we may think most useful to pro- 
mote at home. What I object to is the immoderate use of the 
power, — exclusions and prohibitions; all. of which, as I think, 
not only interrupt the pursuits of individuals, with great injury 
to themselves and little or no benefit to the country, but also 
often divert our own labor, or, as it may very properly be called, 
our own domestic industry, from those occupations in which it 
is well employed and well paid, to others in which it will be 
worse employed and worse paid. For my part, I see very little 
relief to those who are likely to be deprived of their employ- 
ments, or who find the prices of the commodities which they 
need, raised, in any of the alternatives which Mr. Speaker has 
presented. It is nothing to say that they may, if they choose, 
continue to buy the foreign article; the answer is, the price is 
augmented: nor that they may use the domestic article; the 
price of that also is increased. Nor can they supply themselves 
by the substitution of their own fabric. How can the agricul- 
turist make his own iron? How can the ship-owner grow his 
own hemp ? 

But I have a yet stronger objection to the course of Mr. 
Speaker’s reasoning; which is, that he leaves out of the case all 
that has been already done for the protection of manufactures, 
and argues the question as if those interests were now for the 


a 


THE TARIFF. 131 


first time to receive aid from duties on imports. I can hardly 
express the surprise I feel that Mr. Speaker should fa}l into the 
common mode of expression used elsewhere, and ask if we will 
give our manufacturers no protection. Sir, look to the history 
of our laws; look to the present state of our laws. Consider 
that our whole revenue, with a trifling exception, is collected 
at the custom-house, and always has been; and then say what 
propriety there is in calling on the government for protection, as 
if no protection had heretofore been afforded. 'The real question 
before us, in regard to all the important clauses of the bill, is 
not whether we will day duties, but whether we will augment 
duties. The demand is for something more than exists, and 
yet it is pressed as if nothing existed. It is wholly forgotten 
that iron and hemp, for example, already pay a very heavy and 
burdensome duty; and, in short, from the general tenor of Mr. 
Speaker’s observations, one would infer that, hitherto, we had 
rather taxed our own manufactures than fostered them by taxes 
on those of other countries. We hear of the fatal policy of the 
tariff of 1816; and yet the law of 1816 was passed avowedly for 
the benefit of manufacturers, and, with very few exceptions, im- 
posed on imported articles very great additions of tax; in some 
important instances, indeed, amounting to a prohibition. 

Sir, on this subject, it becomes us at least to understand the 
real posture of the question. Let us not suppose that we are 
beginning the protection of manufactures, by duties on imports. 
What we are asked to do is, to render those duties much higher, 
and therefore, instead of dealing in general commendations of 
the benefits of protection, the friends of the bill, I think, are 
bound to make out a fair case for each of the manufactures 
which they propose to benefit. The government has already 
done much for their protection, and it ought to be presumed to 
have done enough, unless it be shown, by the facts and consider- 
ations applicable to each, that there is a necessity for doing more. 

On the general question, Sir, allow me to ask if the doctrine 
of prohibition, as a general doctrine, be not preposterous. Sup- 
pose all nations to act upon it; they would be. prosperous, then, 
according to the argument, precisely in the proportion in which 
they abolished intercourse with one another. The less of mu- 
tual commerce the better, upon this hypothesis. Protection and 
encouragement may be, and doubtless are, sometimes, wise and 


132 THE TARIFF. 


beneficial, if kept within proper limits; but when carried to an 
extravagant height, or the point of prohibition, the absurd char- 
acter of the system manifests itself. Myr. Speaker has referred to 
the late Emperor Napoleon, as having attempted to naturalize 
the manufacture of cotton in France. He did not cite a more 
extravagant part of the projects of that ruler, that is, his attempt 
to naturalize the growth of that plant itself, in France ; whereas, 
we have understood that considerable districts in the South of 
France, and in Italy, of rich and productive lands, were at one 
time withdrawn from profitable uses, and devoted to raising, at 
great expense, a little bad cotton. Nor have we been referred to 
the attempts, under the same system, to make sugar and coffee 
from common culinary vegetables; attempts which served to 
fill the print-shops of Hurope, and to show us how easy is the 
transition from what some think sublime to that which all ad- 
mit to be ridiculous. The folly of some of these projects has 
not been surpassed, nor hardly equalled, unless it be by the phi- 
losopher in one of the satires of Swift, who so long labored to 
extract sunbeams from cucumbers. 

The poverty and unhappiness of Spain have been attributed 
to the want of protection to her own industry. If by this it 
be meant that the poverty of Spain is owing to bad government 
and bad laws, the remark is, in a great measure, just. But these 
very laws are bad because they are restrictive, partial, and’ pro- 
hibitory. If prohibition were protection, Spain would seem to 
have had enough of it. Nothing can exceed the barbarous ri- 
gidity of her colonial system, or the folly of her early commercial 
regulations. Unenlightened and bigoted legislation, the multi- 
tude of holidays, miserable roads, monopolies on the part of gov- 
ernment, restrictive laws, that ought long since to have been ab- 
rogated, are gencrally, and I believe truly, reckoned the principal 
causes of the bad state of the productive industry of Spain. Any 
partial improvement in her condition, or increase of her prosper- 
ity, has been, in all cases, the result of relaxation, and the aboli- 
tion of what was intended for favor and protection. 

In short, Sir, the general sense of this age sets, with a strong 
current, in favor of freedom of commercial intercourse, and un- 
restrained individual action. Men yield up their notions of 
monopoly and restriction, as they yield up other prejudices, 
slowly and reluctantly ; but they cannot withstand the general 
tide of opinion. 


THE TARIFF. 133 


Let me now ask, Sir, what relief this bill proposes to some 
of those great and essential interests of the country, the condi- 
tion of which has been referred to as proof of national distress ; 
and which condition, although I do not think it makes out a 
ease of distress, yet does indicate depression. 

And first, Sir, as to our foreign trade. Mr. Speaker has stated 
that there has been a considerable falling off in the tonnage 
employed in that trade. ‘This is true, lamentably true. In my 
opinion, it is one of those occurrences which ought to arrest our 
immediate, our deep, our most earnest attention. What does 
this bill propose for its relief? It proposes nothing but new 
burdens. It proposes to diminish its employment, and it pro- 
poses, at the same time, to augment its expense, by subjecting 
it to heavier taxation. Sir, there is no interest, in regard to 
which a stronger case for protection can be made out, than the 
navigating interest. Whether we look at its present condition, 
which is admitted to be depressed, the number of persons con- 
nected with it, and dependent upon it for their daily bread, or 
its importance to the country in a political point of view, it 
has claims upon our attention which cannot be surpassed. But 
what do we propose to do for it? I repeat, Sir, simply to bur- 
den and to tax it. By a statement which I have already sub- 
mitted to the committee, it appears that the shipping interest 
pays, annually, more than half a million of dollars in duties on 
articles used in the construction of ships. We propose to add 
nearly, or quite, fifty per cent. to this amount, at the very mo- 
ment that we appeal to the languishing state of this interest 
as a proof of national distress. Let it be remembered that our 
shipping employed in foreign commerce has, at this moment, 
not the shadow of government protection. It goes abroad upon 
the wide sea to make its own way, and earn its own bread, in 
a professed competition with the whole world. Its resources are 
its own frugality, its own skill, its own enterprise. It hopes to 
succeed, if it shall succeed at all, not by extraordinary aid of 
government, but by patience, vigilance, and toil. This right arm 
of the nation’s safety strengthens its own muscle by its own 
efforts, and by unwearied exertion in its own defence becomes 
strong for the defence of the country. 

No one acquainted with this interest can deny that its situa- 
tion, at this moment, is extremely critical. We have left. it 

VOL. III. 12 


134 THE TARIFF. 


hitherto to maintain itself or perish; to swim if it can, and to 
sink if it must. But at this moment of its apparent struggle, 
can we as men, can we as patriots, add another stone to the 
weight that threatens to carry it down? Sir, there is a limit to 
human power, and to human effort. I know the commercial 
marine of this country can do almost every thing, and bear 
almost every thing. Yet some things are impossible to be done, 
and some burdens may be impossible to be borne; and as it 
was the last ounce that broke the back of the camel, so the last 
tax, although it were even a small one, may be decisive as to the 
power of our marine to sustain the conflict in which it is now 
engaged with all the commercial nations on the globe. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, the failures and the bankruptcies which 
have taken place in our large cities have been mentioned as 
proving the little success attending commerce, and its general 
decline. But this bill has no balm for those wounds. It is very 
remarkable, that when the losses and disasters of certain manu- 
facturers, those of iron, for instance, are mentioned, it is done for 
the purpose of invoking aid for the distressed. Not so with the 
losses and disasters of commerce; these last are narrated, and 
not unfrequently much exaggerated, to prove the ruinous nature 
of the employment, and to show that it ought to be abandoned, 
and the capital engaged in it turned to other objects. 

It has been often said, Sir, that our manufacturers have to 
contend, not only against the natural advantages of those who 
produce similar articles in foreign countries, but also against the 
action of foreign governments, who have great political interest 
in aiding their own manufactures to suppress ours. But have 
not these governments as great an interest to cripple our marine, 
by preventing the growth of our commerce and navigation? 
What is it that makes us the object of the highest respect, or 
the most suspicious jealousy, to foreign states? What is it 
that most enables us to take high relative rank among the na- 
tions? I need not say that this results, more than from any 
thing else, from that quantity of military power which we can 
cause to be water-borne, and from that extent of commerce 
which we are able to maintain throughout the world. 


Mr. Chairman, I am conscious of having detained the com- 
mittee much too long with these observations. My apology for 


THE TARIFF. 135 


now proceeding to some remarks upon the particular clauses of 
the bill is, that, representing a district at once commercial and 
highly manufacturing, and being called upon to vote upon a bill 
containing provisions so numerous and so yarious, I am natu- 
rally desirous to state as well what I approve, as what I would 
reject. 

The first section proposes an augmented duty upon woollen 
manufactures. This, if it were unqualified, would no doubt be 
desirable to those who are engaged in that business. I have 
myself presented a petition from the woollen manufacturers of 
Massachusetts, praying an augmented ad valorem duty upon 
imported woollen cloths; and I am prepared to accede to that 
proposition, to a reasonable extent. But then this bill proposes, 
also, a very high duty upon imported wool; and, as far as I can 
learn, a majority of the manufacturers are at least extremely 
doubtful whether, taking these two provisions together, the state 
of the law is not better for them now than it would be if this 
bill should pass. It is said, this tax on raw wool will benefit 
the agriculturist; but I know it to be the opinion of some of 
the best informed of that class, that it will do them more hurt 
than good. ‘They fear it will check the manufacturer, and con- 
sequently check his demand for their article. The argument is, 
that a certain quantity of coarse wool, cheaper than we can 
possibly furnish, is necessary to enable the manufacturer to carry 
on the general business, and that if this cannot be had, the con- 
sequence will be, not a greater, but a less, manufacture of our 
own wool. Jam aware that very intelligent persons differ upon 
this point; but if we may safely infer from that difference of 
opinion, that the proposed benefit is at least doubtful, it would 
be prudent perhaps to abstain from the experiment. Certain 
it is, that the same reasoning has been employed, as I have 
before stated, on the same subject, when a renewed application 
was made to the English Parliament to repeal the duty on im- 
ported wool, I believe scarcely two months ago; those who sup- 
ported the application pressing urgently the necessity of an unre- 
stricted use of the cheap, imported raw material, with a view to 
supply with coarse cloths the markets of warm climates, such 
as those of Egypt and ‘Turkey, and especially a vast newly cre- 
ated demand in the South American states. 

As to the manufactures of cotton, it is agreed, I believe, that 


136 THE TARIFF. 


they are generally successful. It is understood that the present 
existing duty operates pretty much as a prohibition over those 
descriptions of fabrics to which it applies. The proposed altera- 
tion would probably enable the American manufacturer to com- 
mence competition with higher-priced fabrics; and so, perhaps, 
would an augmentation less than is here proposed. I consider 
the cotton manufactures not only to have reached, but to have 
passed, the point of competition. I regard their success as cer- 
tain, and their growth as rapid as the most impatient could well 
expect. If, however, a provision of the nature of that recom- 
mended here were thought necessary, to commence new opera- 
tions in the same line of manufacture, I should cheerfully agree 
to it, if it were not at the cost of sacrificing other great interests 
of the country. I need hardly say, that whatever promotes the 
cotton and woollen manufactures promotes most important in- 
terests of my constituents. They have a great stake in the suc- 
cess of those establishments, and, as far as those manufactures 
are concerned, would be as much benefited by the provisions of 
this bill as any part of the community. It is obvious, too, 1 
should think, that, for some considerable time, manufactures of 
this sort, to whatever magnitude they may rise, will be princi- 
pally established in those parts of the country where population 
is most dense, capital most abundant, and where the most suc- 
cessful beginnings have already been made. 

But if these be thought to be advantages, they are greatly 
counterbalanced by other advantages enjoyed by other portions 
of the country. I cannot but regard the situation of the West 
as highly favorable to human happiness. It offers, in the abun- 
dance of its new and fertile lands, such assurances of permanent 
property and respectability to the industrious, it enables them to 
lay such sure foundations for a competent provision for their 
families, it makes such a nation of freeholders, that it need not 
envy the happiest and most prosperous of the manufacturing 
communities. We may talk as we will of well-fed and well- 
clothed day-laborers or journeymen; they are not, after all, to be 
compared, either for happiness or respectability, with him who 
sleeps under his own roof and cultivates his own fee-simple in- 
heritance. 

With respect to the proposed duty on glass, I would observe, 
that, upon the best means of judging which I possess, | am of 


THE TARIFF. 137 


opinion that the chairman of the committee is right in stating 
that there is in effect a bounty upon the exportation of the Brit- 
ish article. I think it entirely proper, therefore, to raise our own 
duty by such an amount as shall be equivalent to that bounty. 

And here, Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to those parts of 
the bill to which I most strenuously object, I will be so pre- 
sumptuous as to take up a challenge which Mr. Speaker has 
thrown down. He has asked us, in a tone of interrogatory in- 
dicative of the feeling of anticipated triumph, to mention any 
country in which manufactures have flourished without the aid 
of prohibitory laws. He has demanded if it be not policy, pro- 
tection, ay, and prohibition, that have carried other states to the 
height of their prosperity, and whether any one has succeeded 
with such tame and inert legislation as ours. Sir, I am ready 
to answer this inquiry. 

There is a country, not undistinguished among the nations, in 
which the progress of manufactures has been far more rapid 
than in any other, and yet unaided by prohibitions or unnatural 
restrictions. ‘That country, the happiest which the sun shines 
on, is our own. 

The woollen manufactures of England have existed from the 
early ages of the monarchy. Provisions designed to aid and 
foster them are in the black-letter statutes of the Edwards and 
the Henrys. Ours, on the contrary, are but of yesterday; and 
yet, with no more than the protection of existing laws, they are 
already at the point of close and promising competition. Sir, 
nothing is more unphilosophical than to refer us, on these sub- 
jects, to the policy adopted by other nations in a very different 
state of society, or to infer that what was judged expedient by 
them, in their early history, must also be expedient for us, in this 
early part of our own. This would be reckoning our age chron- 
ologically, and estimating our advance by our number of years; 
when, in truth, we should regard only the state of society, the 
knowledge, the skill, the capital, and the enterprise which belong 
to our times. We have been transferred from the stock of Eu- 
rope, in a comparatively enlightened age, and our civilization 
and improvement date as far back as her own. Her original 
history is also our original history ; and if, since the moment of 
separation, she has gone ahead of us in some respects, it may 
be said, without violating truth, that we have kept up in others, 


12* 


138 THE TARIFF. 


and, in others again, are head ourselves. We are to legislate, 
then, with regard to the present actual state of society; and our 
own experience shows us, that, commencing manufactures at the 
present highly enlightened and emulous moment, we need not 
resort to the clumsy helps with which, in less auspicious times, 
governments have sought to enable the ingenuity and industry 
of their people to hobble along. 

The English cotton manufactures began about the com- 
mencement of the last reign. Ours can hardly be said to have 
commenced, with any earnestness, until the application of the 
power-loom, in 1814, not more than ten years ago. Now, Sir, I 
hardly need again speak of its progress, its present extent, or its 
assurance of future enlargement. In some sorts of fabrics we 
are already exporters, and the products of our factories are, at this 
moment, in the South American markets. We see, then, what 
can be done without prohibition or extraordinary protection, be- 
cause we see what has been done; and I venture to predict, 
that, in a few years, it will be thought wonderful that these 
branches of manufactures, at least, should have been thought to 
require additional aid from government. 

Mr. Chairman, the best apology for laws of prohibition and 
laws of monopoly will be found in that state of society, not only 
unenlightened but sluggish, in which they are most generally 
established. Private industry, in those days, required strong 
provocatives, which governments were seeking to administer by 
these means. Something was wanted to actuate and stimulate 
men, and the prospects of such profits as would, in our times, 
excite unbounded competition, would hardly move the sloth of 
former ages. In some instances, no doubt, these laws produced 
an effect, which, in that period, would not have taken place 
without them. But our age is of a wholly different character, 
and its legislation takes another turn. Society is full of excite- 
ment; competition comes in place of monopoly; and intelli- 
gence and industry ask only for fair play and an open field. 
Profits, indeed, in such a state of things, will be small, but they 
will be extensively diffused; prices will be low, and the great 
body of the people prosperous and happy. It is worthy of re- 
mark, that, from the operation of these causes, commercial 
wealth, while it is increased beyond calculation in its general 
ageregate, is, at the same time, broken and diminished in its 


THE TARIFF. 139 
; . 
subdivisions. Commercial prosperity should be judged of, there- 


fore, rather from the extent of trade, than from the magnitude of 
its apparent profits. It has been remarked, that Spain, certain- 
ly one of the poorest nations, made very great profits on the 
amount of her trade; but with little other benefit than the en- 
riching of a few individuals and companies. Profits to the 
English merchants engaged in the Levant and ‘Turkey trade 
were formerly very great, and there were richer merchants in 
England some centuries ago, considering the comparative value 
of money, than at the present highly commercial period. When 
the diminution of profits arises from the extent of competition, 
it indicates rather a salutary than an injurious change." 

The true course then, Sir, for us to pursue, is, in my opinion, 
to consider what our situation is; what our means are; and 
how they can be best applied. What amount of population 
have we in comparison with our extent of soil, what amount of 
capital, and labor at what price? As to skill, knowledge, and 
enterprise, we may safely take it for granted that in these par- 
ticulars we are on an equality with others. Keeping these con- 
siderations in view, allow me to examine two or three of those 
provisions of the bill to which I feel the strongest objections. 

To begin with the article of iron, Our whole annual con- 
sumption of this article is supposed by the chairman of the com- 
mittee to be forty-eight or fifty thousand tons. Let us suppose 
the latter. ‘he amount of our own manufacture he estimates, 
I think, at seventeen thousand tons. ‘The present duty on the 
imported article is $15 per ton, and as this duty causes, of 
course, an equivalent augmentation of the price of the home 
manufacture, the whole increase of price is equal to $750,000 
annually. This sum we pay on a raw material, and on an ab- 
solute necessary of life. The bill proposes to raise the duty from 
$15 to $ 22.50 per ton, which would be equal to $ 1,125,000 on 
the whole annual consumption. So that, suppose the point of 


* «The present equable diffusion of moderate wealth cannot be better illus- 
trated, than by remarking that in this age many palaces and superb mansions 
have been pulled down, or converted to other purposes, while none have been 
erected on a like scale. ‘lhe numberless baronial castles and mansions, in all 
parts of England, now in ruins, may all be adduced as examples of the decrease 
of inordinate wealth. On the other hand, the multiplication of commodious 
dwellings for the upper and middle classes of society, and the increased comforts 
of all ranks, exhibit a picture of individual happiness, unknown in any other age.’ 
— Sir G. Blane’s Letter to Lord Spencer, in 1800. 


140 THE. TARIFF, 


prohibition which is aimed at by some gentlemen to be attained, 
the consumers of the article would pay this last-mentioned sum 
every year to the producers of it, over and above the price at 
which they could supply themselves with the same article from 
other sources. There would be no mitigation of this burden, 
except from the prospect, whatever that might be, that iron 
would fall in value, by domestic competition, after the importa- 
tion should be prohibited. It will be easy, I think, to show that 
it cannot fall; and supposing for the present that it shall not, the 
result will be, that we shall pay annually the sum of $1,125,000, 
constantly augmented, too, by increased consumption of the ar- 
ticle, to support a business that cannot support itself. 

It is of no consequence to the argument, that this sum is ex- 
pended at home; so it would be if we taxed the people to sup- 
port any other useless and expensive establishment, to build 
another Capitol, for example, or incur an unnecessary expense 
of any sort. The question still is, Are the money, time, and 
labor well laid out in these cases? The present price of iron at 
Stockholm, I am assured by importers, is $53 per ton on board, 
$48 in the yard before loading, and probably not far from $ 40 
at the mines. Freight, insurance, &c., may be fairly estimated 
at $15, to which add our present duty of $15 more, and these 
two last sums, together with the cost on board at Stockholm, 
give $83 as the cost of Swedes iron in our market. In fact, it 
is said to have been sold last year at $81.50 to $82 per ton. 
We perceive, by this statement, that the cost of the iron is 
doubled in reaching us from the mine in which it is produced. 
In other words, our present duty, with the expense of transporta- 
tion, gives an advantage to the American over the foreign man- 
ufacturer of one hundred per cent. Why, then, cannot the iron 
be manufactured at home? Our ore is said to be as good, and 
some of it better. It is under our feet, and the chairman of the 
committee tells us that it might be wrought by persons who 
otherwise will not be employed. Why, then, is it not wrought? 
Nothing could be more sure of constant sale. It is not an arti- 
cle of changeable fashion, but of absolute, permanent necessity, 
and such, therefore, as would always meet a steady demand. 
Sir, I think it would be well for the chairman of the committee 
to revise his premises, for I am persuaded that there is an ingre- 
dient properly belonging to the calculation which he has mis- 


THE TARIFF. 141 


stated or omitted. Swedes iron in England pays a duty, I 
think, of about $27 per ton; yet it is imported in considerable 
quantities, notwithstanding the vast capital, the excellent coal, 
and, more important than all perhaps, the highly improved state 
of inland navigation in England; although I am aware that the 
English use of Swedes iron may be thought to be owing in 
some degree to its superior quality. | 

Sir, the true explanation of this appears to me to lie in the 
different prices of labor; and here I apprehend is the grand 
mistake in the argument of the chairman of the committee. He 
says it would cost the nation, as a nation, nothing, to make our 
ore into-iron. Now, I think it would cost us precisely that 
which we can worst afford; that is, great labor. Although bar- 
iron is very properly considered a raw material in respect to its 
various future uses, yet, as bar-iron, the principal ingredient in 
its cost is labor. Of manual labor, no nation has more than a 
certain quantity, nor can it be increased at will. As to some 
operations, indeed, its place may be supplied by machinery; but 
there are other services which machinery cannot perform for it, 
and which it must perform for itself. A most important ques- 
tion for every nation, as well as for every individual, to propose 
to itself, is, how it can best apply that quantity of labor which 
it is able to perform. Labor is the great producer of wealth ; 
it moves all other causes. If it call machinery to its aid, it is 
still employed, not only in using the machinery, but in making 
it. Now, with respect to the quantity of labor, as we all know, 
different nations are differently circumstanced. Some need, 
more than any thing, work for hands, others require hands for 
work; and if we ourselves are not absolutely in the latter class, 
we are still most fortunately very near it. I cannot find that we 
have those idle hands, of which the chairman of the committee 
speaks. ‘The price of labor is a conclusive and unanswerable 
refutation of that idea; it is known to be higher with us than in 
any other civilized state, and this is the greatest of all proofs of 
general happiness. Labor in this country is independent and 
proud. It has not to ask the patronage of capital but capital 
solicits the aid of labor. ‘This is the general truth in regard to 
the condition of our whole population, although in the large 
cities there are doubtless many exceptions. ‘The mere capacity 
to labor in common agricultural employments, gives to our 


142 THE TARIFF. 


young men the assurance of independence. We have been 
asked, Sir, by the chairman of the committee, in a tone of some 
pathos, whether we will allow to the serfs of Russia and Swe- 
den the benefit of making iron for us. Let me inform the gen- 
tleman, Sir, that those same serfs do not earn more than seven 
cents a day, and that they work in these mines for that compen- 
sation because they are serfs. And let me ask the gentleman 
further, whether we have any labor in this country that cannot 
be better employed than in a business which does not yield the 
laborer more than seven cents a day? ‘This, it appears to me, 
is the true question for our consideration. There is no reason 
for saying that we will work iron because we have mountains 
that contain the ore. We might for the same reason dig among 
our rocks for the scattered grains of gold and silver which might 
be found there. ‘The true inquiry is, Can we produce the article 
in a useful state at the same cost, or nearly at the same cost, or 
at any reasonable approximation towards the same cost, at which 
we can import it? 

Some general estimates of the price and profits of labor, in 
those countries from which we import our iron, might be formed 
by comparing the reputed products of different mines, and their 
prices, with the number of hands employed. ‘The mines of 
Danemora are said to yield about 4,000 tons, and to employ in 
the mines twelve hundred workmen. Suppose this to be worth 
$50 per ton; any one will find by computation, that the whole 
product would not pay, in this country, for one quarter part of 
the necessary labor. The whole export of Sweden was esti- 
mated, a few years ago, at 400,000 ship pounds, or about 54,000 
tons. Comparing this product with the number of workmen 
usually supposed to be employed in the mines which produce 
iron for exportation, the result will not greatly differ from the 
foregoing. ‘These estimates are general, and might not conduct 
us to a precise result; but we know, from intelligent travellers, 
and eyewitnesses, that the price of labor in the Swedish mines 
does not exceed seven cents a day.* 


* The price of labor in Russia may be pretty well collected from Tooke’s 
*¢ View of the Russian Empire.’ ‘*'The workmen in the mines and the foun- 
deries are, indeed, all called master-people ; but they distinguish themselves into 
masters, under-masters, apprentices, delvers, servants, carriers, washers, and 
separators. In proportion to their ability their wages are regulated, which pro- 
ceed from fifteen to upwards of thirty roubles per annum. ‘The provisions which 


THE TARIFF. 143 


The true reason, Sir, why it is not our policy to compel our 
citizens to manufacture our own iron, is, that they are far better 
employed. It is an unproductive business, and they are not 
poor enough to be obliged to follow it. If we had more of pov- 
erty, more of misery, and something of servitude, if we had an 


. ignorant, idle, starving population, we might set up for iron 


makers against the world. 

The committee will take notice, Mr. Chairman, that, under 
our present duty, together with the expense of transportation, 
our manufacturers are able to supply their own immediate 
neighborhood; and this proves the magnitude of that substan- 
tial encouragement which these two causes concur to give. 
There is little or no foreign iron, I presume, used in the county 
of Lancaster. This is owing to the heavy expense of land car- 
riage; and, as we recede farther from the coast, the manufactur- 
ers are still more completely secured, as to their own immediate 
market, against the competition of the imported article. But 
what they ask is to be allowed to supply the sea-coast, at such 
a price as shall be formed by adding to the cost at the mines the 
expense of land carriage to the sea; and this appears to me 
most unreasonable. The effect of it would be to compel the 
consumer to pay the cost of two land transportations; for, in 
the first place, the price of iron at the inland furnaces will al- 
ways be found to be at, or not much below, the price of the 
imported article in the seaport, and the cost of transportation to 
the neighborhood of the furnace; and to enable the home prod- 
uct to hold a competition with the imported in the seaport, the 
cost of another transportation downward, from the furnace to 
the coast, must be added. Until our means of inland commerce 


_be improved, and the charges of transportation by that means 


lessened, it appears to me wholly impracticable, with such duties 
as any one would think of proposing, to meet the wishes of the 
manufacturers of this article. Suppose we were to add the 


they receive from the magazines are deducted from this pay.’’ ‘The value of the 
rouble at that time (1799) was about twenty-four pence sterling, or forty-five 
cents of our money. 

* By the edict of 1799,’ it is added, ‘‘a laborer with a horse shall receive, 
daily, in summer, twenty, and in winter, twelve copecks; a laborer without a 
horse, in summer, ten, in winter, eight copecks.”’ 

A copeck is the hundreth part of a rouble, or about half a cent of our money. 
The price of labor may have risen, in some degree, since that period, but proba- 
bly not much. 


144 | THE TARIFF. 


duty proposed by this bill, although it would benefit the capital 
invested in works near the sea and the navigable rivers, yet the 
benefit would not extend far in the interior. Where, then, are 
we to stop, or what limit is proposed to us? 

The freight of iron has been afforded from Sweden to the 
United States as low as eight dollars per ton. This is not more 
than the price of fifty miles of land carriage. Stockholm, there- 
fore, for the purpose of this argument, may be considered as 
within fifty miles of Philadelphia. Now, it is at once a just and 
a strong view of this case, to consider, that there are, within fifty _ 
miles of our market, vast multitudes of persons who are willing 
to labor in the production of this article for us, at the rate of 
seven cents per day, while we have no labor which will not com- 
mand, upon the average, at least five or six times that amount. 
The question is, then, shall we buy this article of these manu- 
facturers, and suffer our own labor to earn its greater reward, or 
shall we employ our own labor in a similar manufacture, and 
make up to it, by a tax on consumers, the loss which it must 
necessarily sustain. 

I proceed, Sir, to the article of hemp. Of this we imported 
last year, in round numbers, 6,000 tons, paying a duty of $30a 
ton, or $180,000 on the whole amount; and this article, it is to 
be remembered, is consumed almost entirely in the uses of nay- 
igation. ‘The whole burden may be said to fall on one interest. 
It is said we can produce this article.if we will raise the duties. 
But why is it not produced now? or why, at least, have we not 
seen some specimens ? for the present is a very high duty, when 
expenses of importation are added. Hemp was purchased at 
St. Petersburg, last year, at $101.67 per ton. Charges attend- 
ing shipment, &c, $14.25. Freight may be stated at $30 per 
ton, and our existing duty $30 more. ‘These three last sums, 
being the charges of transportation, amount to’a protection of 
near seventy-five per cent. in favor of the home manufacturer, 
if there be any such. And we ought to consider, also, that 
the price of hemp at St. Petersburg is increased by all the ex- 
pense of transportation from the place of growth to that port; 
so that probably the whole cost of transportation, from the place 
of growth to our market, including our duty, is equal to the first 
cost of the article; or, in other words, is a protection in favor 
of our own product of one hundred per cent. 


THE TARIFF. 145 


And since it is stated that we have great quantities of fine 
land for the production of hemp, of which I have no doubt, the 
question recurs, Why is it not produced? I speak of the water 
rotted hemp, for it is admitted that that which is dew-rotted is 
not sufficiently good forthe requisite purposes. I cannot say 
whether the cause be in climate, in the process of rotting, or 
what else, but the fact is certain, that there is no American 
water-rotted hemp in the market. We are acting, therefore, 
upon an hypothesis. Is it not reasonable that those who say that 
they can produce the article shall at least prove the truth of that 
allegation, before new taxes are laid on those who use the for- 
eign commodity? Suppose this bill passes; the price of hemp 
is immediately raised $14.80 per ton, and this burden falls im- 
mediately on the ship-builder; and no part of it, for the present, 
will go for the benefit of the American grower, because he has 
none of the article that can be used, nor is it expected that much 
of it will be produced for a considerable time. Still the tax takes 
effect upon the imported article; and the ship-owners, to enable 
the Kentucky farmer to receive an additional $14 on his ton of 
hemp, whenever he may be able to raise and manufacture it, 
pay, in the mean time, an equal sum per ton into the treasury on 
all the imported hemp which they are still obliged to use; and 
this is called “ protection!” Is this just or fair? A particular 
interest is here burdened, not only for the benefit of another 
particular interest, but burdened also beyond that, for the benefit 
of the treasury. It is said to be important for the country that 
this article should be raised in it; then let the country bear the 
expense, and pay the bounty. If it be for the good of the 
whole, let the sacrifice be made by the whole, and not by a part. 
If it be thought useful and necessary, from political considera- 
tions, to encourage the growth and manufacture of hemp, gov- 
ernment has abundant means of doing it. It might give a 
direct bounty, and such a measure would, at least, distribute the 
burden equally; or, as government itself is a great consumer of 
this article, it might stipulate to confine its own purchases to 
the home product, so soon as it should be shown to be of the 
proper quality. JI see no objection to this proceeding, if it be 
thought to be an object to encourage the production. It might 
easily, and perhaps properly, be provided by law, that the navy 
should be supplied with American hemp, the quality being 

VOL. Il. 15 


146 THE TARIFF. 


good, at any price not exceeding, by more than a given amount, 
the current price of foreign hemp in our market. Every thing 
conspires to render some such course preferable to the one now 
proposed. The encouragement in that way would be ample, 
and, if the experiment should succeed, the whole object would 
be gained; and if it should fail, no considerable loss or evil 
would be felt by any one. 

I stated, some days ago, and I wish to renew the statement, 
what was the amount of the proposed augmentation of the 
duties on iron and hemp, in the cost of a vessel. Take the case 
of a common ship of three hundred tons, not coppered, nor cop- 
per-fastened. It would stand thus, by the present duties : — 


141 tons of iron, for hull, rigging, and anchors, at $15 


per4ony). : : ; ; . $217.50 
10 tons of hemp, at $ 30, : ; ; 300.00 
40 bolts Russia duck, at $2, . : ‘ : 80.00 
20 bolts Ravens duck, at $1.25, .. : : 25.00 
On articles of ship-chandlery, cabin furniture, hard- 
ware, &c., : . : A : 40.00 
$ 662.50 
The bill proposes to add,— 
$ 7.40 per ton on iron, which will be. : . $107.30 
$ 14.80 per ton on hemp, equal to : ; 148.00 
And on duck, by the late amendment of the bill, say 
29 per cent., : : - : 25.00 
$ 280.30 





But to the duties on iron and hemp should be added those 
paid on copper, whenever that article is used. By the state- 
ment which I furnished the other day, it appeared that the duties 
received by government on articles used in the construction of 
a vessel of three hundred and fifty-nine tons, with copper fasten- 
ings, amounted to $1,056. With the augmentations of this 
bill, they would be equal to $ 1,400. 

Now I cannot but flatter myself, Mr. Chairman, that, before 
the committee will consent to this new burden upon the ship- 
ping interest, it will very deliberately weigh the probable conse- 
quences. I would again urgently solicit its attention to the con- 


THE TARIFF. 147 


dition of that interest. We are told that government has pro- 
tected it, by discriminating duties, and by an exclusive right to 
the coasting trade. But it would retain the coasting trade, by 
its own natural efforts, in like manner, and with more certainty, 
than it now retains any portion of foreign trade. The discrimi- 
nating duties are now abolished, and while they existed, they 
were nothing more than countervailing measures; not so much 
designed to give our navigation an advantage over that of other 
nations, as to put it upon an equality; and we have, accordingly, 
abolished ours, when they have been willing to abolish theirs. 
Look to the rate of freights. Were they ever lower, or even so 
low? Lask gentlemen who know, whether the harbor of Charles- 
ton, and the river of Savannah, be not crowded with ships seek- 
ing employment, and finding none? I would ask the gentle- 
men from New Orleans, if their magnificent Mississippi does 
not exhibit, for furlongs, a forest of masts? The condition, Sir, 
of the shipping interest is not that of those who are insisting on 
high profits, or struggling for monopoly ; but it is the condition 
of men content with the smallest earnings, and anxious for their 
bread. The freight of cotton has formerly been three pence ster- 
ling, from Charleston to Liverpool, in time of peace. It is now 
I know not what, or how many fractions of a penny; I think, 
however, it is stated at five eighths. The producers, then, of 
this great staple, are able, by means of this navigation, to send 
it, for a cent, a pound, from their own doors to the best market 
in the world. 

Mr. Chairman, I will now only remind the committee that, 
while we are proposing to add new burdens to the shipping in- 
terest, a very different line of policy is followed by our great 
commercial and maritime rival. It seems to be announced as 
the sentiment of the government of England, and undoubtedly 
it is its real sentiment, that the first of all manufactures is the 
manufacture of ships. A constant and wakeful attention is paid 
to this interest, and very important regulations, favorable to it, 
have been adopted within the last year, some of which I will 
beg leave to refer to, with the hope of exciting the notice, not 
only of the committee, but of all others who may feel, as I do, a 
deep interest in this subject. In the first place, a general 
amendment has taken place in the register acts, introducing 
many new provisions, and, among others, the following :— 


148 THE TARIFF. 


A direct mortgage of the interest of a ship is allowed, with- 
out subjecting the mortgagee to the responsibility of an owner 

The proportion of interest held by each owner is exhibited in 
the register, thereby facilitating both sales and mortgages, and 
giving a new value to shipping among the moneyed classes. 

Shares, in the ships of copartnerships, may be registered as 
joint property, and subject to the same rules as other partnership 
effects. 

Ships may be registered in the name of trustees, for the ben- 
efit of joint-stock companies. 

And many other regulations are adopted, with the same 
general view of rendering the mode of holding the property as 
convenient and as favorable as possible. 

By another act, British registered vessels, of every description, 
are allowed to enter into the general and the coasting trade in 
the India seas, and may now trade to and from India, with any 
part of the world, except China. 

By a third, all limitations and restrictions, as to latitude and 
longitude, are removed from ships engaged in the Southern 
whale-fishery. ‘These regulations, I presume, have not been 
made without first obtaining the consent of the East India 
Company ; so true is it found, that real encouragement of enter- 
prise oftener consists, in our days, in restraining or buying off . 
monopolies and prohibitions, than in imposing or extending 
them. . 3 

The trade with Ireland is turned into a free coasting trade; 
light duties have been reduced, and various other beneficial ar- 
rangements made, and still others proposed. I might add, that, 
in favor of general commerce, and as showing their confidence 
in the principles of liberal intercourse, the British government 
has perfected the warehouse system, and authorized a recipro- 
city of duties with foreign states, at the discretion of the Privy 
Council. 

This, Sir, is the attention which our great rival is paying to 
these important subjects, and we may assure ourselves that, if 
we do not cherish a proper sense of our own interests, she will 
not only beat us, but will deserve to beat us. 

Sir, I will detain you no longer. ‘There are some parts of 
this bill which I highly approve; there are others in which I 
should acquiesce; but those to which I have now stated my 





THE TARIFF, 149 


objections appear to me so destitute of all justice, so burden- 
some and so dangerous to that interest which has steadily en- 
riched, gallantly defended, and proudly distinguished us, that 
nothing can prevail upon me to give it my support." 


* Since the delivery of this speech, an arrival has brought London papers 
containing the speech of the English Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Robin- 
son), on the 23d of February last, in submitting to Parliament the annual finan- 
cial statement. Abundant confirmation will be found in that statement of the 
remarks made in the preceding speech, as to the prevailing sentiment, in the 
English government, on the general subject of prohibitory laws, and on the 
silk manufacture and the wool tax particularly. 


13° 


Pon Be todoUhD Deal Relat 


Ar the first session of the Nineteenth Congress a bill was introduced 
into the House of Representatives, by Mr. Webster, from the Committee 
on the Judiciary, which proposed that the Supreme Court of the United 
States should thenceforth consist of a chief justice and nine associate 
justices, and provided for the appointment of three additional associate 
justices of said court, and that the seventh Judicial Circuit Court of the 
United States should consist of the districts of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois ; 
the eighth circuit, of the districts of Kentucky and Missouri; the ninth 
circuit, of the districts of Tennessee and Alabama; and the tenth cir- 
cuit, of the districts of Louisiana and Mississippi. 

It repealed so much of any act or acts of Congress as vested in the 
District Courts of the United States in the districts of Indiana, Illinois, 
Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, the powers and jurisdic- 
tion of Circuit Courts, and provided that theie should be thenceforth 
Circuit Courts for said districts, to be composed of the justice of the 
Supreme Court assigned or allotted to the circuit to which such districts 
might respectively belong, and of the district judge of such districts. 

On this bill Mr. Webster spoke as follows : — 


Tue bill which is under the consideration of the committee 
is so simple in its provisions, and so unembarrassed with detail, 
that little or nothing in the way of explanation merely is prob- 
ably expected from the committee. But the general importance 
of the subject, and the material change which the proposed 
measure embraces, demands some exposition of the reasons 
which have led the Committee on the Judiciary to submit it to 
the consideration of the House. 

The occasion naturally presents two inquiries: first, whether 
any evils exist in the administration of justice in the courts of 


* Remarks made in the House of Representatives of the United States, on the 


4th of January, 1826, on the Bill to amend the Judiciary System. 


THE JUDICIARY. 151 


the United States; and secondly, whether, if there be such evils, 
the proposed bill is a proper and suitable remedy. On botb 
these points it is my duty to express the sentiments which the 
Committee on the Judiciary entertain. Perhaps, however, Mr. 
Chairman, before entering into a discussion of these two ques- 
tions, I may be allowed to state something of the history of this 
department of the government, and to advert to the several laws 
which have been, from time to time, enacted respecting its or- 
ganization. 

The judicial power, which, by the Constitution, was to be ex- 
ercised by the present government, necessarily engaged the at- 
tention of the first Congress. ‘The subject fell into the hands of 
very able men, and it may well excite astonishment that the 
system which they prepared and recommended, and which was 
adopted in the hurried session of the summer of 1789, has thus 
far been found to fulfil, so well and for so long a time, the great 
purposes which it was designed to accomplish. 'The general 
success of the general system, so far, may well inspire some de- 
gree of caution in the minds of those who are called on to alter 
or amend it. 

By the original act of September, 1789, there was to be a 
Supreme Court, according to the Constitution, which was to 
consist of six judges, and to hold two sessions a year at the 
seat of government. ‘The United States, or such of them as 
had then adopted the Constitution, were to be divided into cir- 
cuits and districts, and there was to be a District Court in each 
district, holden by a district judge. The districts were divided 
into three circuits, the Eastern, the Middle, and the Southern ; 
and there was to be a Circuit Court in each district, to be com- 
posed of two of the justices of the Supreme Court, and the 
district judge for the district. This Circuit Court was to hold 
two sessions a year in each district, and I need not inform the 
committee, that the great mass of business, excepting only that 
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, belonged to the Circuit 
Court as a court of original jurisdiction. It entertained appeals, 
or writs of error, also, from the decisions of the District Courts, 
in all cases. 

By this arrangement, then, the justices of the Supreme Court 
were required to hold two sessions of that court annually, at 
the seat of government, to hear appeals and causes removed by 


152 THE JUDICIARY. 


writs of error; and it was required of them also, that two of 
them should attend in each district twice a year, to hold, with 
the district judge, a Circuit Court. 

It was found that these duties were so burdensome, that they 
could not be performed. In November, 1792, the judges ad- 
dressed the President on the subject, (who laid their communi- 
cation before Congress,) setting forth their inability to perform 
the services imposed on them by law, without exertions and sac- 
rifices too great to be expected from any men. It was, doubt- 
less, this communication which produced the law of March, 1793, 
by which it was provided that one judge of the Supreme Cowt, 
with the district judge, should constitute the Circuit Court. 
And, inasmuch as the courts would now consist of two judges, 
provision was made, perhaps sufhciently awkward and incon- 
venient, for the case of difference of opinion. It will be observed, 
Mr. Chairman, that by these laws, thus far, particular justices 
are not assigned to particular circuits. Any two judges of the 
Supreme Court, under the first law, and any one, under that of 
1793, with the district judge, constituted a Circuit Court. A 
change, or alternation, of the judges was contemplated by the 
law. It was accordingly provided by the act of 1793, that, in 
case of division of opinion, as the court consisted of but two 
judges, the question should be continued to the next session, 
and, if a different judge then appeared, and his opinion coin- 
cided with that of his predecessor, judgment should go accord- 
ingly. 

And here, Mr. Chairman, I wish to observe, that, in my opin- 
ion, the original plan of holding the Circuit Courts by different 
judges, from time to time, was ill-judged and founded on a 
false analogy. It seems to have been borrowed from the Eng- 
lish Courts of Assize and Mist Prius; but the difference in the 
powers and jurisdiction of the judges in the two cases rendered 
what was proper for one not a fit model for the other. The 
English judges at Misi Prius, so far as civil causes are con- 
cerned, have nothing to do but try questions of fact by the aid 
of a jury, on issues or pleadings already settled in the court 
from which the record proceeds. They give no final judgments; 
nor do they make interlocutory orders respecting the proceeding 
and progress of the cause. They take a verdict of the jury on 
the issues already joined between the parties, and give no other 


THE JUDICIARY. 153 


directions in matters of law, than such as become necessary in 
the course of this trial by jury. Every case begun, therefore, is 
ordinarily finished. Nothing of that case remains for the judge’s 
successor. If it be tried, the record is taken back with the ver- 
dict to Westminster Hall; if it be not tried, the whole case 
remains for a subsequent occasion. It is, perhaps, surprising, 
that the very able men who framed the first judicial act did not 
see the great difference between this manner of proceeding at 
the English Assizes, and the necessary course of proceeding in 
our Circuit Courts, with the powers and jurisdictions conferred 
on those courts. ‘These are courts of final jurisdiction; they not 
only take verdicts, but give judgments. Here suits are brought, 
proceeded with through all their stages, tried, and finally deter- 
mined. And as, in the progress of suits, especially those of 
equity jurisdiction, it necessarily happens that there are different 
stages, and successive orders become necessary from term to 
term, it happened, of course, that the judge was oiten changed 
before the cause was decided; he who heard the end had not 
heard the beginning. When to this is added, that these judges 
were bred in different schools, and, as to matters of practice, es- 
pecially, accustomed to different usages, it will be easy to per- 
ceive that no small difficulties were to be encountered in the 
ordinary despatch of business. So, in cases reserved for advise- 
ment and further consideration, the judge reserving the question 
was not the judge to decide it. He who heard the argument 
was not to make the decision. Without pursuing this part of 
the case farther, it is quite obvious that such a system could not 
answer the ends of justice. The courts, indeed, were called Cir- 
cuit Courts, which seemed to imply an itinerant character ; but, 
in truth, they resembled much more, in their power and jurisdic- 
tion, the English courts sitting in bench, than the Assizes, to 
which they appear to have been likened. 

The act of 1793, by requiring the attendance of only ovfe, in- 
stead of two, of the judges of the Supreme Court on the cir- 
cuits, of course diminished by one half the circuit labors of those 
judges. 

We then come to the law of February, 1801. By this act, 
the judges of the Supreme Court were relieved from all circuit 
duties. Provision was made that their number should be re- 
duced, on the first vacancy, from six to five. They were still to 


154. THE JUDICIARY. 


hold two sessions annually of the Supreme Court, and circuit 
judges were appointed to hold the Circuit Court in each district. 
The provisions of this law are generally known, and it is not 
necessary to recite them particularly. It is enough to say, that, 
in five of the six circuits, the Circuit Court was to consist of 
three judges, specially appointed to constitute such court; and 
in the sixth, of one judge, specially appointed, and the district 
judge of the district. 

We all know, Sir, that this law lasted but a twelvemonth. It 
was repealed in toto by the act of the 8th of March, 1802; and a 
new organization of the Circuit Courts was provided for by the 
act of the 29th of April of that year. It must be admitted, I 
think, Sir, that this act made considerable improvements upon 
the system, as it existed before the act of February, 1801. It took 
away the itinerary character of the Circuit Courts, by assigning 
particular justices to particular circuits. ‘This, in my opinion, 
was a great improvement. It conformed the constitution of the 
court to the nature of the powers which it exercised. ‘The same 
judges now heard the cause through all the stages of-its progress, 
and the court became, what its duties properly made it, a court 
of record, with permanent judges, exercising a various jurisdic- 
tion, trying causes at its bar by jury, in cases proper for the in- 
tervention of a jury, and rendering final judgments. This act 
also provided another mode of proceeding with cases in which 
the two judges composing the Circuit Court should differ in 
opinion. It prescribed, that such difference should be stated, 
certified to the Supreme Court, and that that court should de 
cide the question, and certify its decision to the Circuit Court. 

In this state of things, the judicial system remained, without 
material change, until the year 1807, when a law was passed 
for the appointment of an additional judge of the Supreme 
Court, and a circuit allotted to him in the Western States. 

Ittmay be here observed, that, from the commencement, the 
system has not been uniform. From the first, there was an 
anomaly in it. By the original act of September, 1789, a Dis- 
trict Court was established for Kentucky (then part of Virginia) 
and for Maine (then part of Massachusetts), and, in addition to 
the powers of District Courts, there was conferred on these all 
the jurisdiction which elsewhere belongs to Circuit Courts, and, 
in other cases, as new States were added to the Union, District 


THE JUDICIARY. 155 


Courts were established with the powers of Circuit Courts. 
The same thing has happened, too, when States have been di- 
vided into two districts. ‘There are, at present, several States 
which have no Circuit Court except the District Court, and 
there are other States which are divided into more than one dis: 
trict, and in some of which Districts there is but a District Cour 
with Circuit Court jurisdiction; so that it cannot be said tha’ 
the system has been at any time entirely uniform. 

So much, Mr. Chairman, for the history of our legislation on 
the judicial department. 

I am not aware, Mr. Chairman, that there is any public com- 
plaint of the operation of the present system, so far as it applies 
to the Atlantic States. So far as I know, justice has been ad 
ministered efficiently, promptly, and satisfactorily, in all those 
circuits. The judges, perhaps, have a good deal of employment: 
but they have been able to go through their arduous duties in 
such manner as to leave no cause of complaint, as far as I am 
informed. For my own part, Iam not sanguine enough to ex- 
pect, as far as those circuits are concerned, that any improve- 
ment can be made. In my opinion, none is needed. But it is 
not so in the Western States. Here exists a great deficiency. 
The country has outgrown the system. ‘This is no man’s fault, 
nor does it impute want of usual foresight to any one. It would 
have seemed chimerical in the framers of the law of 1789, if they 
had professed to strike out a, plan which should have been ade- 
quate to the exigencies of the country, as it actually exists in 1826. 
From a period as far back as the close of the late war, the peo- 
ple of the West have applied to Congress on the subject of the 
courts. No session of Congress has passed without an attempt, 
in one or the other house, to produce some change; and al- 
though various projects have been presented, the inherent difli- 
culties of the subject have prevented any efficient action of the 
legislature. I will state shortly, Sir, and as nearly as I remem- 
ber, what has been at different times proposed. 

In the first place, it has been proposed to recur to the system 
of Circuit Courts, upon the principle, although not exactly after 
the model, of the act of February, 1801. A bill of this charac- 
ter passed the Senate in 1819, dividing the country into nine 
circuits, and providing for the appointment of one circuit judge 
to each circuit, who with the district judge of the district should 


156 THE JUDICIARY. 


constitute the Circuit Court. It also. provided, that the Su- 
preme Court, as vacancies should occur, should be reduced to 
five members. This bill, I believe, was not acted upon in this 
House. Again, it has been proposed to constitute Circuit Courts 
by the union of the district judges in the circuit. It has been 
proposed, also, to extend the existing system somewhat in con- 
formity to the object of the present bill, by adding to the num- 
ber of the judges in the Supreme Court. And a different ar- 
rangement still has been suggested, which contemplates the 
appointment of circuit judges for some districts, and the con- 
tinued performance of circuit duties by the supreme judges in 
others, with such legal provision as shall not attach the judges 
of the Supreme Court, in the performance of their circuit duties, 
unequally to any part of the country, but allow them to be dis- 
tributed equally and fairly over the whole. ‘his system, though 
somewhat complex, and perhaps liable to be misunderstood, is, 
I confess, what appears to me best of all suited to our condition. 
It would not make the Supreme Court too numerous; and. it 
would still require from its members the performance of circuit 
duties ; it would allow a proper distribution. of these members 
to every part of the country; and, finally, it would furnish an 
adequate provision for the despatch of business in the Circuit 
Courts. Upon this plan, a bill was presented to the House of 
Representatives at the first session of the last Congress, but it 
did not meet with general favor; and the fate of a similar prop- 
osition elsewhere, at a subsequent period, discourages any revi- 
val of it. 

I now come, Sir, to consider whether any, and what, evils ex- 
ist; and then, whether the present bill be a suitable remedy. 
And in the first place, it is said, perhaps with some justice, that 
the business of the Supreme Court itself is not gone through 
with sufficient promptitude ; that it is accumulating; that great 
delays are experienced, and greater delays feared. As to this, I 
would observe, that the annual session of the court cannot last 
above six or seven weeks, because it commences in February, 
and the circuit duties of the judges require them to leave this 
place the latter part of March. But I know no reason why the 
judges should not assemble earlier. I believe it would not ma- 
terially interfere with their circuit duties, to commence the ses- 
sion here in the early part of January; and if that were the case, 


THE JUDICIARY. 157 


I have little doubt that, in two years, they would clear the 
docket. A bill to make this change passed this House two 
years ago; I regret to say, it was not acted upon in the Senate. 

As to returning to the original practice of having two sessions 
of the Supreme Court within the year, I incline to think it 
wholly inexpedient. The inconvenience arising from the dis- 
tance of suitors and counsel from the seat of government forms 
a decisive objection to that proposition. 

The great evil, however, Sir, at present experienced, and that 
which calls most loudly and imperatively for a remedy, is the 
state of business in the Circuit Courts in the Western States. 
The seventh circuit consists of Kentucky, Ohio, and ‘Tennessee. 
All the other Western States have District Courts, with the 
powers of Circuit Courts. Iam clearly of opinion, that some fur- 
ther provision is required of us for the administration of justice 
in these States. The existing means are not equal to the end. 
The judicial organization is not competent to exercise the juris- 
diction which the laws confer upon it. There is a want of men, 
and a want of time. In this respect, it appears to me that our 
constitutional duty is very plain. The Constitution confers cer- 
tain judicial powers on the government of the United States; 
we undertake to provide for the exercise of these powers; but 
the provision is inadequate, and the powers are not exercised. 
By the Constitution, the judicial power of this government ex- 
tends, as well as to other things, to causes between citizens of 
different States. We open courts professedly to exercise that 
jurisdiction; but they are not competent to it; it is not exer- 
cised with reasonable promptitude; the suitor is delayed, and 
the end of the constitutional provision, in some measure, defeat- 
ed. Now, it appears to me very plain, that we should either 
refuse to confer this jurisdiction on the courts, or that we should 
so constitute them that it may be efficiently exercised. 

I hold, Sir, the certificate of the clerk for the District and Cir- 
euit Court of the District of Kentucky, that there are now pend- 
ing in those courts nine hundred and fifty causes. As this is 
not a maritime district, most of these causes, doubtless, are in 
the Cireuit Court. This accumulation has not arisen from any 
want of diligence in the judges themselves, for the same papez 
states, that two thousand causes have been disposed of within 
the last three years. ‘The Memorial of the Bar of Nashville in- 

VOL. III. 14 


158 THE JUDICIARY. 


forms us that one hundred and sixty cases are pending in the 
Circuit Court for the Western District of Tennessee; a num- 
ber, perhaps, not much less, is on the docket of the court for the 
Eastern District of Tennessee; and I am authorized to state 
that two hundred or two hundred and fifty may be taken as the 
number of suits pending in the Circuit Court of Ohio. ‘These 
three States, Sir, constitute one circuit; they extend over a wide 
region; the places for holding the courts are at vast distances 
from one another; and it is not within the power of man, that the 
judge assigned to this circuit should get through the duties of his 
station. With the state of the courts in the other Western and 
Southwestern States, [am not so particularly acquainted. Gen- 
tlemen from those States will make it known to the committee. 
I know enough, however, to be satisfied that the whole case calls 
for attention. It grows no better by delay, and, whatever difh- 
culties embarrass it, we may as well meet them at once, and agree 
upon such remedy as shall, upon the whole, seem most expedient. 

And this, Sir, brings me to the most difficult part of our in- 
quiry; that is to say, whether such a measure as this bill pro- 
poses be the proper remedy. I beg to say, Sir, that I feel this 
difficulty as deeply as it can be felt by any member of the com- 
mittee ; and while I express my own opinions, such as they are, 
I shall be most happy to derive light from the greater experi- 
ence, or the better intelligence, of any gentleman. ‘To me it 
appears, that we are brought to the alternative of deciding be- 
tween something like what this bill proposes, and the Circuit 
Court system, as provided in the bill of the Senate in 1819. 
Awa practical question, I think it has come to this point: Shall 
we extend the present system, by increasing the number of the 


judges, or shall we recur to the system of Circuit Courts? Tin- ° 


voke the attention of the committee to this question, because, 
thinking the one or the other inevitable, I wish for the mature 
judgment of the House on both. 

In favor of the Circuit Court system, it may be said, that it is 
uniform, and may be made to apply to all the States equally; 
so that if new States come into the Union, Circuit Courts may 
be provided for them without derangement to the general organ- 
ization. This, doubtless, is a consideration entitled to much 
weight. It is said, also, that by separating the judges of the 
Supreme Court from the circuits, we shall leave them ample 


THE JUDICIARY. 159 


time for the discharge of the high duties of their appellate juris- 
diction. This, no doubt, is true; but then, whether it be desira- 
ble, upon the whole, to withdraw the judges of the Supreme 
Court from the circuits, and to confine their labors entirely to 
the sessions at Washington, is a question which has most deeply 
occupied my reflections, and in regard to which I am free to 
confess some change has been wrought in my opinions. With 
entire respect for the better judgment of others, and doubting, 
therefore, when I find myself differing from those who are wiser 
and more experienced, I am still constrained to say, that my 
judgment is against withdrawing the judges of the Supreme 
Court from the circuits, if it can be avoided. The reasons 
which influence this sentiment are general, and perhaps may be 
thought too indefinite and uncertain to serve as a guide in meas- 
ures of public importance; they nevertheless appear to me to 
have weight, and I will state them with frankness, in the hope 
that, if they are without reasonable foundation, they will be 
shown to be so, when certainly I shall cheerfully relinquish them. 

In the first place, it appears to me that such an intercourse as 
the judges of the Supreme Court are enabled to have with the 
profession, and with the people, in their respective circuits, is 
itself an object of no inconsiderable importance. It naturally 
inspires respect and confidence, and it produces a reciprocal 
communication of information through all the branches of the 
judicial department. 'This leads to a harmony of opinion and 
of action. ‘The Supreme Court, by itself, is in some measure 
insulated; it has not frequent occasions of contact with the 
community. The bar that attends it is neither numerous nor 
regular in its attendance. The gentlemen who appear before it, 
in the character of counsel, come for the occasion, and depart 
with the occasion. The profession is occupied mainly in the 
objects which engage it in its own domestic forums; it belongs 
to the States, and their tribunals furnish its constant and prin- 
cipal theatre. If the judges of the Supreme Court, therefore, 
are wholly withdrawn from the circuits, it appears to me there 
is danger of leaving them without the means of useful inter- 
course with other judicial characters, with the profession of 
which they are members, and with the public. But, without 
pursuing these general reflections, I would say, in the second 
place, that I think it useful that judges should see in practice 


160 THE JUDICIARY. 


the operation and effect of their own decisions. This will pre- 
vent theory from running too far, or refining too much. We 
find, in legislation, that general provisions of law, however cau- 
tiously expressed, often require limitation and modification. 
Something of the same sort takes place in judicature. How- 
ever beautiful may be the theory of general principles, such 
is the infinite variety of human affairs, that those most practised 
in them and conversant with them see at every turn a necessity 
of imposing restraints and qualifications on such principles. 
The daily application of their own doctrines will necessarily in- 
spire courts with caution; and, by a knowledge of what takes 
place upon the circuits and occurs in constant practice, they will 
be able to decide finally, without the imputation of having over- 
looked, or not understood, any of the important elements and 
ingredients of a just decision. 

But further, Sir, I must take the liberty of saying, that, in re- 
gard to the judicial office, constancy of employment is of itself, 
in my judgment, a good, and a great good. I appeal to the con- 
viction of the whole profession, if, as a general rule, they do not 
find that those judges who decide most causes decide them best. 
Exercise strengthens and sharpens the faculties in this more 
than in almost any other employment. I would have the judi- 
cial office filled by him who is wholly a judge, always a judge, 
and nothing but a judge. With proper seasons, of course, for 
recreation and repose, his serious thoughts should all be turned 
to his official duties; he should be omnis in hoc. I think, Sir, 
there is hardly a greater mistake than has prevailed occasionally 
in some of the States, of creating many judges, assigning them 
duties which occupy but a small part of their time, and then 
making this the ground for allowing them a small compensation. 
The judicial power is incompatible with any other pursuit in 
life ; and all the faculties of every man who takes it ought to be 
constantly exercised, and exercised to one end. Now, Sir, it is 
natural, that, in reasoning on this subject, I should take my 
facts from what passes within my own means of observation. 
If I am mistaken in my premises, the conclusion, of course, 
ought to be rejected. But I suppose it will be safe to say, that 
a session of eight weeks in the year will probably be sufficient 
for the decision of causes in the Supreme Court; and, reasoning 
from what exists in one of the most considerable circuits in the 


THE JUDICIARY. 161 


Atlantic States, I suppose that eight, ten, or at most twelve 
weeks, may be the average of the time requisite to be spent by 
a circuit judge in his court in those circuits. If this be so, then, 
if the courts be separated, we have supreme judges occupied 
two months out of twelve, and circuit judges occupied three 
months out of twelve. In my opinion, this is not a system 
either to make or to keep good judges. The Supreme Court 
exercises a great variety of jurisdiction. It reverses decisions at 
common law, in equity, and in admiralty; and with the theory 
and the practice of all these systems it is indispensable that the 
judges should be accurately and intimately acquainted. It is 
for the committee to judge how far the withdrawing them from 
the circuits, and confining them to the exercise of an appellate 
jurisdiction, may increase or diminish this information. But, 
again, Sir, we have a great variety of local laws existing in this 
country, which are the standard of decision where they prevail. 
The laws of New England, Maryland, Louisiana, and Ken- 
tucky are almost so many different codes. These laws are to be 
construed and administered, in many cases, in the courts of the 
United States. Is there any doubt that a judge coming on the 
bench of the Supreme Court with a familiar acquaintance with 
these laws, derived from daily practice and decisions, must be 
more able both to form his own judgment correctly, and to assist 
that of his brethren, than a stranger who only looks at the the- 
ory? ‘This is a point too plain to be argued. Of the weight 
of the suggestion the committee will judge. It appears to me, I 
confess, that a court remotely situated, a stranger to these local 
laws in their application and practice, with whatever diligence 
or with whatever ability, must be liable to fall into great mistakes. 

May I ask your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, to suggest one 
other idea. With no disposition whatever to entertain doubts 
as to the manner in which the executive duty of appointments 
shall at any time hereafter be performed, the Supreme Court is 
so important, that, in whatever relates to it, I am willing to make 
assurance doubly sure, and to adopt, therefore, whatever fairlv 
comes in my way likely to increase the probability that able and 
efficient men will be placed upon that bench. Now I confess 
that I know nothing which I think more conducive to that end 
than the assigning to the members of that court important, re- 
sponsible, individual duties. Whatsoever makes the individual 


14* 


loz THE JUDICIARY. 


prominent, conspicuous, and responsible increases the proba- 
bility that he will be some one possessing the proper requisites 
for a judge. It is one thing to give a vote upon a bench (es- 
pecially if it be a numerous bench) for plaintiff or defendant, 
and quite another thing to act as the head of a court of various 
jurisdiction, civil and criminal, to conduct trials by jury, and 
render judgments in law, equity, and admiralty. While these 
duties belong to the condition of a judge on the bench, that 
place will not be a sinecure, nor likely to be conferred without 
proofs of proper qualifications. For these reasons, I am inclined 
to wish that the judges of the Supreme Court may not be sep- 
arated from the circuits, if any other suitable provision can be 
made. 

As to the present bill, Mr. Chairman, it will doubtless be ob- 
jected, that it makes the Supreme Court too numerous. In 
regard to that, I am bound to say that my own opinion was, 
that the present exigency of the country could have been an- 
swered by the addition of two members to the court. I believe 
the three Northwestern States might well enough go on for some 
time longer, and form a circuit of themselves, perhaps, hereaf- 
ter, as the population shall increase, and the state of their affairs 
require it. ‘The addition of the third judge is what I assent to, 
rather than what I recommend. It is what I would gladly 
avoid, if I could with propriety. I admit that, for some causes, 
the court as constituted by the bill will be inconveniently large; 
for such, especially, as require investigation into matters of fact, 
such as those of equity and admiralty, and perhaps for all pri- 
vate causes generally. But the great and leading character of 
the Supreme Court, its most important duties, and its highest 
functions, have not yet been alluded to. It is its peculiar rela- 
tion to this government and the State governments, it is the 
power which it rightfully holds and exercises, of revising the 
opinions of other tribunals on constitutional questions, as the 
great practical expounder of the powers of the government, 
which attaches to this tribunal the greatest attention, and makes 
it worthy of the most deliberate consideration. Duties at once 
so important and so delicate impose no common responsibility, 
and require no common talent and weight of character. A very 
small court seems unfit for these high functions. These duties, 
though essentially judicial, partake something of a politica 


THE JUDICIARY. 163 


character. The judges are called on to sit in judgment on 
the acts of independent States; they control the will of sover- 
eigns; they are liable to be exposed, therefore, to the resent- 
ment of wounded sovereign pride; and from the very nature 
of our system, they are sometimes called on, also, to decide 
whether Congress has not exceeded its constitutional limits. Sir, 
there exists not upon the earth, and there never did exist, a judi- 
cial tribunal clothed with powers so various, and so important. 
I doubt the safety of rendering it small in number. My own 
opinion is, that, if we were to establish Circuit Courts, and to 
confine their judges to their duties on the bench, their number 
should not be at all reduced ; and if, by some moderate addition 
to it, other important objects may well be answered, I am pre- 
pared to vote for such addition. In a government like ours, en- 
tirely popular, care should be taken in every part of the system, 
not only to do right, but to satisfy the community that right is 
done. ‘The opinions of mankind naturally attach more respect 
and confidence to the decisions of a court somewhat numerous, 
than to those of one composed of a less number. And, for 
myself, I acknowledge my fear, that, if the number of the court 
were reduced, and its members wholly withdrawn from the cir- 
cuits, it might become an object of unpleasant jealousy and 
great distrust. 

Mr. Chairman, I suppose I need not assure the committee 
that, if Isaw any thing in this bill which would lessen the re- 
spectability or shake the independence of the Supreme Court, I 
should be the last man to favor it. I look upon the judicial de- 
partment of this government as its main support. I am _ per- 
* suaded that the Union could net exist without it. I shall oppose 
whatever I think calculated to disturb the fabric of government, 
to unsettle what is settled, or to shake the faith of honest men 
in the stability of the laws, or the purity of their administration. 
If any gentleman shall show me that any of these consequences 
is like to follow the adoption of this measure, I shall hasten to 
withdraw from it my support. But I think we are bound to do 
something; and shall be most happy if the wisdom of the House 
shall suggest a course more free from difficulties than that which 
is now proposed to it. 


164 THE JUDICIARY. 


FURTHER REMARKS MADE ON THE SAME SUBJECT, ON THE 
25TH OF JANUARY, 1826, IN REPLY TO THE ARGUMENTS USED 
AGAINST THE BILL, AND IN FAVOR OF ITS POSTPONEMENT. 


I nap not intended, Sir, to avail myself of the indulgence 
which is generally allowed, under circumstances like the present, 
of making a reply. But the House has been invited with such 
earnestness to postpone this measure to another year, it has 
been pressed, with so much apparent alarm, to give no further 
countenance or support now to the bill, that I reluctantly depart 
from my purpose, and ask leave to offer a few brief remarks upon 
the leading topics of the discussion. 

This, Sir, must be allowed, and is, on all hands allowed, to be 
a measure of great and general interest. It respects that im- 
portant branch of government, the judiciary; and something of 
a judicial tone of discussion is not unsuitable to the occasion. 
We cannot treat the question too calmly, or too dispassionately. 
For myself, I feel that I have no pride of opinion to gratify, no 
eagerness of debate to be indulged, no competition to be pur- 
sued. I hope I may say, without impropriety, that I am not 
insensible to the responsibility of my own situation as a mem- 
ber of the House, and a member of the committee.* I am 
aware of no prejudice which should draw my mind from the sin- 
gle and solicitous contemplation of what may be best; and I 
have listened attentively, through the whole course of this de- 
bate, not with the feelings of one who is meditating the means 
of replying to objections, or escaping from their force, but with 
an unafiected anxiety to give every argument its just weight, 
and with a perfect readiness to abandon this measure, at any 
moment, in favor of any other which should appear to have 
solid grounds of preference. But I cannot say that my opinion 
is altered. ‘he measure appears to my mind in the same light 
as when it was first presented to the House. I then saw some 
inconveniences attending it, and admitted them. I see them 
now; but while the effect of this discussion on my own mind 
has not been to do away entirely the sense of these inconven- 
iences, it has not been, on the other hand, to remove the greater 
objections which exist to any other plan. I remain fully con- 


* Mr. Webster was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of 
Representatives, at this session of Congress. 





THE JUDICIARY. 165 


vineed, that this course is, on the whole, that which is freest from 
difficulties. However plausible other systems may seem in their 
general outline, objections arise, and thicken as we go into their 
details. It is not now at all certain that those who are opposed 
to this bill are agreed as to what other measure should be pre- 
ferred. On the contrary, it is certain that no plan unites them 
all; and they act together only on the ground of their common 
dissatisfaction with the proposed bill. That system which 
seems most favored is the circuit system, as provided for in 
the Senate’s bill of 1819. But as to that there is not an entire 
agreement. One provision in that bill was, to reduce the num- 
ber of the judges of the Supreme Court to five. This was a part, 
too, of the original resolution of amendment moved by the gen- 
tleman from Virginia;* but it was afterwards varied; probably 
to meet the approbation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
and others who preferred to keep the court at its present num- 
ber. But other gentlemen who are in opposition to this bill 
have still reeommended a reduction of that number. Now, Sir, 
notwithstanding such reduction was one object, or was to be 
one effect, of the law of 1801, was contemplated, also, in the 
Senate’s bill of 1819, and has been again recommended by 
the gentleman from Virginia, and other gentlemen, yet I can- 
not persuade myself that any ten members of the House, upon 
mature reflection, would now be in favor of such reduction. It 
could only be made to take place when vacancies should occur 
on the bench, by death or resignation. Of the seven judges of 
which the court consists, six are now assigned to circuits in the 
Atlantic States; one only is attached to the Western Districts. 
Now, Sir, if we were to provide for a reduction, it might hap- 
pen that the first vacancy would be in the situation of the single 
Western judge. In that event, no appointment could be made 
until two other vacancies should occur, which might be several 
years. I suppose that no man would think it just, or wise, 
or prudent, to make a legal provision, in consequence of which 
it might happen that there should be no Western judge at all 
on the supreme bench for several years to come. ‘This part of 
the plan, therefore, was wisely abandoned by the gentleman. 
The court cannot be reduced; and the question is only between 


* Mr. Powell. {7 Mr. Buchanan. 


166 THE JUDICIARY. 


seven justices of the Supreme Court, with ten circuit judges, and 
ten justices of the Supreme Court, with no circuit judges. 

I will take notice here of another suggestion made by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, who is generally so sober-minded 
and considerate in his observations, that they deserve attention, 
from respect to the quarter whence they proceed. ‘That gentle- 
man recommends that the justices of the Supreme Court should 
be relieved from circuit duties, as individuals, but proposes, ney- 
ertheless, that the whole court should become migratory, or am- 
bulatory, and that its sessions should be holden, now in New 
York or Boston, now in Washington or Richmond, and now in 
Kentucky or Ohio. And it is singular enough, that this arrange- 
ment is recommended in the same speech in which the anthori- 
ty of a late President is cited, to prove that considerations aris- 
ing from the usually advanced age of some of the judges, and 
their reasonable desire for repose, ought to lead us to relieve 
them from all circuit duties whatever. ‘Truly, Sir, this is a 
strange plan of relief. Instead of holding courts in his own 
State, and perhaps in his own town, and visiting a neighboring 
State, every judge on this plan is to join every other judge, and 
the whole bench to make, together, a sort of judicial progress. 
They are to visit the North, and the South, and to ascend and 
descend tne Alleghanies. Sir, it is impossible to talk seriously 
against such a proposition. ‘To state it, is to refute it. Let me 
merely ask, whether, in this peregrination of the court, it is pro- 
posed that they take all their records of pending suits, and the 
whole calendar of causes, with them. If so, then the Kentucky 
client, with his counsel, is to follow the court to Boston; and 
the Boston client to pursue it back to Kentucky. Or is it, on 
the contrary, proposed that there shall be grand judicial divis- 
ions in the country, and that while at the North, for example, 
none but Northern appeals shall be heard? If this be intended, 
then I ask, How often could the court sit in each one of these 
divisions? Certainly, not oftener than once in two years; prob- 
ably, not oftener than once in three. An appeal, therefore, 
might be brought before the appellate court in two or three 
years from the time of rendering the first judgment; and sup- 
posing judgment to be pronounced in the appellate court at 
the second term, it would be decided in two or thiee years more. 
But it is not necessary to examine this suggestion further. Sir, 


THE JUDICIARY. 167 


every thing conspires to prove, that, with respect to the great 
duties of the Supreme Court, they must be discharged at one 
annual session, and that session must be holden at the seat of 
government. If such provision be made as that the business of 
the year in that court may be despatched within the year, rea- 
sonable promptitude in the administration of justice will be at- 
tained; and such provision, I believe, is practicable. 

Another objection advanced by the member from Pennsylva- 
nia applies as well to the system as it now exists, as to that 
which will be substituted if this bill shall pass. 'The honorable 
member thinks that the appellate court and the court from 
which the appeal comes should, in all cases, be kept entirely dis- 
tinct and separate. ‘I'rue principle requires, in his judgment, 
that the circuit judge should be excluded from any participa- 
tion in the revision of his own judgments. I believe, Sir, that, 
in the early history of the court, the practice was for the judge 
whose opinion was under revision not to partake in the delib- 
erations of the court. This practice, however, was afterwards 
altered, and the court resolved that it could not discharge the 
judge from the duty of assisting in the decision of the appeal. 
Whether the two courts ought to be kept so absolutely distinct 
and separate as the member from Pennsylvania recommends, is 
not so clear a question that persons competent to form an 
opinion may not differ upon it. On the one hand, it may very 
well be said, that, if the judgment appealed from has been ren- 
dered by one of the judges of the appellate court, courtesy, 
kindness, or sympathy may inspire some disposition in the 
members of the same bench to affirm that judgment; and that 
the general habit of the court may thus become unfriendly to a 
free and unbiased revision. On the other hand, it may be con- 
tended, that, if there be no medium of communication between 
the court of the first instance, and the court of appellate juris- 
diction, there may be danger that the reasons of the first may 
not be always well understood, and its judgments: consequently 
liable, sometimes, to be erroneously reversed. It certainly is not 
true, that the chance of justice, in an appellate court, is always 
precisely equal to the chance of reversing the judgment below; 
although it is necessary for the peace of society and the termi- 
nation of litigation to take it for granted, as a general rule, that 
what is decided by the ultimate tribunal is decided rightly. 


168 THE JUDICIARY. 


To guard against too great a tendency to reversals in appel- 
late courts, it has often been thought expedient to furnish a 
good opportunity at least of setting forth the grounds and rea- 
sons of the original judgment. ‘Thus, in the British House of 
Lords a judgment of the King’s Bench is not ordinarily reversed 
until the judges have been called in, and the reason of their 
several opinions stated by themselves. ‘Thus, too, in the Court 
of Errors of New York, the Chancellor and the judges are 
members of the court; and, although they do not vote upon the 
revision of their own judgments or decrees, they are expected to 
assign and explain the reasons of the original judgment. In 
the modern practice of the courts of common law, causes are 
constantly and daily revised on motions for new trials founded 
on the supposed misdirection of the judge in matter of law. In 
these cases the judge himself is a component member of the 
court, and constantly takes part in its proceedings. It certainly 
may happen in such cases that some bias of preconceived opin- 
ion may influence the individual judge, or some undue portion 
of respect for the judgment already pronounced may uncon- 
sciously mingle itself with the judgments of others. But the 
universality of the practice sufficiently shows that no great prac- 
tical evil is experienced from this cause. 

It has been said in England, that the practice of revising the 
opinions of judges by motions for new trial, instead of filing bills 
of exception and suing out writs of error, has greatly diminished 
the practical extent of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of 
Lords. ‘This shows that suitors are not advised that they have 
no hope to prevail against the first opinions of individual judges, 
or the sympathy of their brethren. Indeed, Sir, judges of the 
highest rank of intellect have always been distinguished for the 
candor with which they reconsider their own judgments. <A 
man who should commend himself for never having altered his 
ppinion might be praised for firmness of purpose; but men 
would think of him, either that he was a good deal above all 
other mortals, or somewhat below the most enlightened of them. 
He who is not wise enough to be always right, should be wise 
enough to change his opinion when he finds it wrong. ‘The 
consistency of a truly great man is proved by his uniform at- 
tachment to truth and principle, and his devotion to the better 
reason; not by obstinate attachment to first-lormed notions. 


—~ 


THE JUDICIARY. 169 


Whoever has not candor enough, for good cause, to change his 
own opinions, is‘ not safe authority to change the opinions of 
other men. But at least, Sir, the member from Pennsylvania 
will admit, that, if an evil in this respect exist under the present 
law, this bill will afford some mitigation of that evil. By aug- 
menting the number of the judges, it diminishes the influence 
of the individual whose judgment may be under revision; and 
so far, I hope, the honorable member may himself think the 
measure productive of good. 

But, Sir, before we postpone to another year the consideration 
of this bill, I beg again to remind the House that the measure is 
not new. It is not new in its general character; it is not en- 
tirely new in its particular provisions. ‘The necessity of some 
reform in the judicial establishment of the country has been pre- 
sented to every Congress, and every session of Congress, since 
the peace of 1815. What has been recommended, at difler- 
ent times, has been already frequently stated. It is enough, 
now, to say, that the measure of extending the system by in- 
creasing the number of the judges of the Supreme Court was 
presented to the House, among other measures, in 1823, by the 
Judiciary Committee; and that so late as the last session it re- 
ceived a distinct expression of approbation in the other branch 
of the legislature. Gentlemen have referred to the bill intro- 
duced into this House two years ago. That bill had my appre- 
bation; I so declared at the commencement of this debate. It 
proposed to effect the object of retaining the judges upon their 
circuits without increasing their number. But it was complex. 
It was thought to be unequal, and it was unsatisfactory. There 
appeared no disposition in the House to adopt it; and when the 
same measure in substance was afterwards proposed in the other 
branch of the legislature, it received the approbation of no 
more than a half dozen voices. This led me to make a remark, 
at the opening of the debate, which I have already repeated, 
that, in my opinion, we are brought to the narrow ground of de- 
ciding between the system of Circuit Courts and the provisions 
of this bill. Shall we keep the judges upon the circuits and 
augment their member, or shall we relieve them from circuit du- 
ties and appoint special circuit judges in their places? This, as 
it seems to me, is the only practical question remaining for our 
decision. 

VOL. III. 15 


170 THE JUDICIARY. 


I do not intend, Sir, to go again into the general question of 
continuing the justices of the Supreme Court in the discharge 
of circuit duties. My opinion has been already expressed, and I 
have heard nothing to alter it. The honorable gentleman from 
Virginia does me more than justice in explaining any expression 
of his own which might refer this opinion to a recent origin, or 
to any new circumstances. I confess, Sir, that four-and-twenty 
years ago, when this matter was discussed in Congress, my opin- 
ion, as far as I can be supposed to have had any opinion then 
on such subjects, inclined to the argument that recommended 
the separation of the judges from the circuits. But, if I may be » 
pardoned for referring to any thing so little worthy the regard of 
the House as my own experience, I will say that that experience 
early led me to doubt the correctness of the first impression, and 
that I became satisfied that it was desirable in itseif that the 
judges of the Supreme Court should remain in the active dis- 
charge of the duties of the circuits. I have acted in conformity 
to this sentiment so often as this subject has been before Con- 
gress in the short periods that I have been a member. [ still feel 
the same conviction; and though I shall certainly yield the 
point, rather than that no provision for the existing exigency 
should be made, yet I should feel no inconsiderable pain in sub- 
mitting to such necessity. I do not doubt, indeed, Sir, that, if 
the judges were separated from circuit duties, we should go on 
very well for some years to come. But looking to it as a per- 
manent system, I view it with distrust and anxiety. 

My reasons are already before the House. J am not about to 
repeat them. I beg to take this occasion, however, to correct 
one or two misapprehensions of my meaning into which gentle- 
men have fallen. I did not say, Sir, that I wished the judges of 
the Supreme Courts to go upon the circuits, to the end that they 
might see in the country the impression which their opinions 
made upon the public sentiment. Nothing like it. What I did 
say was, that it was useful that the judge of the Supreme Court 
should be able to perceive the application and bearing of the 
opinions of that court upon the variety of causes coming before 
him at the circuit. And is not this useful? Is it not probable 
that the judge will lay down a general rule with the greatest 
wisdom and precision, who comprehends in his view the greatest 
number of instances to which that rule is to be applied? As far 


THE JUDICIARY. 171 


as I can now recall the train of my own ideas, the expression 
was suggested by a reflection upon the laws of the Western 
States, respecting title to land. We hear often in this House 
of “judicial legislation.” If any such thing exist in this coun- 
try, an instance of it doubtless is to be found in the land laws 
of some of the Western States. In Kentucky, for example, 
titles to the soil appear to depend, to a very great extent, upon 
a series of judicial decisions, growing out of an act of the Legis- 
lature of Virginia passed in 1779, for the sale-and disposition of 
her public domain. ‘The legislative provision was very short 
and general; and as rights were immediately acquired under it, 
the want of legislative detail could only be supplied by judicial 
construction and determination. Hence a system has grown 
up, which is complex, artificial, and argumentative. I do not 
impute blame to the courts; they had no option but to decide 
cases as they arose, upon the best reasons. And although I am 
a very incompetent judge in the case, yet as far as I am in- 
formed, it appears to me that the courts, both of the State and 
of the United States, have applied just principles to the state of 
things which they found existing. But, Sir, as a rule laid down 
at Washington in one of these cases may be expected to affect 
five hundred others, is it not obvious that a judge, bred to this 
peculiar system of law, and having also many of these cases in 
judgment before him in his own circuit, is better enabled to 
state, to limit, and to modify the general rule, than another 
judge, though of equal talents, who should be a stranger to 
the decisions of the State tribunals, a stranger to the opinions 
and practice of the profession, and a stranger to all cases except 
the single one before him for judgment ? 

The honorable member from Pennsylvania asks, Sir, whether 
a statute of Vermont cannot be as well understood at Wash- 
ington, as at Windsor or Rutland. Why, Sir, put in that shape, 
the question has very little meaning. But if the gentleman in- 
tends to ask, whether a judge who has been for years in the 
constant discharge of the duties incumbent upon him as the 
head of the Circuit Court in Vermont, and who, therefore, has 
had the statutes of that State frequently before him, has learned 
their interpretation by the State judicatures, and their connec- 
tion with other laws, local or general,—if the question be, wheth- 
er such a judge is not probably more competent to understand 


172 THE JUDICIARY. 


that statute than another, who, with no knowledge of its local 
interpretation or local application, shall look at its letter for the 
first time in the hall of the Supreme Court,—#if this be the 
question, Sir, which the honorable gentleman means to pro- 
pound, I cheerfully refer him to the judgment of this House, 
and to his own good understanding, for an answer. Sir, we 
have heard a tone of observation upon this subject which quite 
surprises me. It seems to imply that one intelligent man is as 
fit to be a judge of the Supreme Court as another. The per- 
ception of the true rule, and its rightful application, whether of 
local or genera] law, are supposed to be entirely easy, because 
there are many volumes of statutes and of decisions. There 
can be no doubt, it seems, that a Supreme Court, however 
constituted, would readily understand, in the instance men- 
tioned, the law of Vermont, because the statutes of Vermont 
‘are accessible. Nor need Louisiana fear that her peculiar code 
will not be thoroughly and practically known, inasmuch as a 
printed copy will be found in the public libraries. 

Sir, I allude to such arguments, certainly not for the purpose 
of undertaking a refutation of them, but only to express my re- 
oret that they should have found place in this discussion. I 
have not contended, Sir, for any thing like judicial representa- 
tion. I care not in what terms of reproach such an idea be 
spoken of. It is none of mine. What I said was, and I still 
say it, that, with so many States, having various and different 
systems, with such a variety of local laws and usages and prac- 
tices, it is highly important that the Supreme Court should be 
so constituted as to allow a fair prospect, in every case, that 
these laws and usages should be known; and that I know noth- 
ing so naturally conducive to this end, as the knowledge and 
_ experience obtained by the judges on the circuits. Let me ask, 
Sir, the members from New England, if they have ever found 
any man this side of the North River who thoroughly under- 
stood our practice of special attachment, our process of garnish- 
ment, or trustee process, or our mode of extending execution 
upon land? And let me ask, at the same time, whether there 
be an individual of the profession, between this place and Maine 
who is, at this moment, competent to the decision of questions 
arising under the peculiar system of land titles of Kentucky or 
Tennessee? If there be such a gentleman, I confess I have not 
the honor of his acquaintance. 


THE JUDICIARY. 173 


On the general question of the utility of constant occupation 
in perfecting the character of a judge, Ido not mean now to 
‘enlarge. I am aware that men will differ on that subject, ac- 
cording to their different means or different habits of observa- 
tion. ‘lo me it seems as clear aS any moral proposition what- 
ever. And I would ask the honorable member from Rhode 
Island, since he has referred to the judge of the first circuit, and 
has spoken of him in terms of respect not undeserved, whether 
he supposes that that member of the court, if, fifteen years ago, 
on receiving his commission, he had removed to this city, and 
had remained here ever since, with no other connection with his 
profession than an annual session of six weeks in the Supreme 
Court, would have been the judge he now is? Sir, if this ques- 
tion were proposed to that distinguished person himself, and if 
he could overcome the reluctance which he would naturally feel 
to speak at all of his own judicial qualities, 1am extremely mis- 
taken if he would not refer to his connection with the Circuit 
Court, and the frequency and variety of his labors there, as effi- 
cient causes in the production of that eminent degree of ability 
with which he now discharges the duties of his station. 

There is not, Sir, an entire revolution wrought in the mind of 
a professional man, by appointing hima judge. He is stilla 
lawyer; and if he have but little to do as a judge, he is, in 
effect, a lawyer out of practice. And how is it, Sir, with law- 
yers who are not judges, and are yet out of practice? Let the 
opinion and the common practice of mankind decide this. If 
you require professional assistance in whatever relates to your 
reputation, your property, or your family, do you go to him who 
is retired from the bar, and who has uninterrupted leisure to 
pursue his readings and reflections; or do you address yourself 
to him, on the contrary, who is in the midst of affairs, busy 
every day, and every hour in the day, with professional pursuits ? 
But I will not follow this topic farther, nor dwell on this part of 
the case. 

I have already said, that, in my opinion, the present number 
of the court is more convenient than a larger number, for the 
hearing of a certain class of causes. ‘This opinion I do not 
retract; for I believe it to be correct. But the question is, 
whether this inconvenience be not more than balanced by other 
advantages. I think it is. 

15* 


174 THE JUDICIARY. 


It has been again and again urged, that this bill makes no 
provision for clearing off the term business of the Supreme 
Court; and strange mistakes, as 1t appears to me, are commit- 
ted, as to the amount of arrears in that court. I believe that 
the bill intended to remedy that evil will remedy it. I believe 
there is time enough for the court to go through its lists of 
causes here, without interfering with the sessions of the Circuit 
Courts; and, notwithstanding the mathematical calculations by 
which it has been proved that the proposed addition to the 
length of the term would enable the court to decide precisely 
nine additional causes, and no more, yet I have authority to say, 
that those who have the best means of knowing were of opin- 
ion, two years ago, that the proposed alteration of the term 
would enable the court, in two years, to go through all the 
causes before it ready for hearing. 

It has been said, Sir, that this measure will injure the char- 
acter of the Supreme Court; because, as we increase numbers, 
we lessen responsibility in the same proportion. Doubiless, as 
a general proposition, there is great truth in this remark. A 
court so numerous as to become a popular body would be unfit 
for the exercise of judicial functions. ‘This is certain. But then 
this general truth, although admitted, does not enable us to fix 
with precision the point at which this evil either begins to be 
felt at all, or to become considerable; still less, where it is se- 
rious or intolerable. If seven be quite few enough, it may not 
be easy to show that ten must necessarily be a great deal too 
many. But there is another view of the case, connected with 
what I have said heretofore in this discussion, and which fur- 
nishes, in my mind, a complete answer to this part of the argu- 
ment; and that is, that a judge who has various important indi- 
vidual duties to perform in the Circuit Court, and who sits in 
the appellate court with nine others, acts, on the whole, in a 
more conspicuous character, and under the pressure of more 
immediate and weighty responsibility, than if he performed no 
individual circuit duty, and sat on the appellate bench with six 
others only. 

But again, it has been argued, that to increase the number of 
the Supreme Court is dangerous; because, with such a prece- 
dent, Congress may hereafter effect any purpose of its own, in 
regard to judicial decisions, by changing essentially the whole 


THE JUDICIARY. 175 


constitution of the court, and overthrowing its settled decis- 
ions, by augmenting the number of judges. Whenever Con- 
gress, it is said, may dislike the constitutional opinions and 
decisions of the court, it may mould it to its own views, upon 
the authority of the present example. But these abuses of 
power are not to be anticipated or supposed; and therefore 
no argument results from them. 

If we were to be allowed to imagine that the legislature would 
act in entire disregard of its duty, there are ways enough, cer- 
tainly, beside that supposed, in which it might destroy the judi- 
ciary, as well as any other branch of the government. ‘The ju- 
diciary power is conferred, and the Supreme Court established, 
by the Constitution; but then legislative acts are necessary to 
confer jurisdiction on inferior courts, and to regulate proceedings 
in all courts. If Congress should neglect the duty of passing 
such laws, the judicial power could not be efficiently exercised. 
If, for example, Congress were to repeal the twenty-fifth section 
of the judicial act of 1789, and make no substitute, there would 
be no mode by which the decisions of State tribunals, on ques- 
tions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United 
States, could be revised in the Supreme Court. Or if they 
were to repeal the eleventh section of that act, the power of try- 
ing causes between citizens of different States, in the tribunals 
of this government, could not be exercised. All other branches 
of the government depend, in like manner, for their continuance 
in life and being, and for the proper exercise of their powers, on 
the presumption that the legislature will discharge its constitu- 
tional duties. If it were possible to adopt the opposite suppo- 
sition, doubtless there are modes enough to which we may look, 
to see the subversion both of the courts and the whole Consti- 
tution. 

Mr. Speaker, I will not detain you by further reply to the va- 
rious objections which have been made to this bill. What has 
occurred to me as most important, I have noticed either now or 
heretofore; and I refer the whole to the dispassionate judgment 
of the House. Allow me, however, Sir, before I sit down, to 
disavow, on my own behalf and on behalf of the committee, 
all connection between this measure and any opinions or decis- 
ions, given or expected, in any causes, or classes of causes, by 
the Supreme Court. Of the merits of the case of which early 


176 THE JUDICIARY. 


mention was made in the debate, I know nothing. I presume 
it was rightly decided, because it was decided by sworn judges, 
composing a tribunal in which the Constitution and the laws 
have lodged the power of ultimate judgment. It would be un- 
worthy, indeed, of the magnitude of this occasion, to bend our 
course a hairs breadth on the one side or the other, either to 
favor or to oppose what we might like, or dislike, in regard to 
particular questions. Surely we are not fit for this great work, 
if motives of that sort can possibly come near us. I have 
forborne, throughout this discussion, all expression of opinion 
on the manner in which the members of the Supreme Court 
have heretofore discharged, and still discharge, the responsible 
duties of their station. I should feel restraint and embarrass- 
ment, were I to make the attempt to express my sentiments on 
that point. Professional habits and pursuits connect me with 
the court, and I feel that it is not proper that I should speak 
here of the personal qualities of its members, either generally or 
individually. They shall not suffer, at least, from any ill-timed 
or clumsy eulogy of mine. I could not, if I would, make them 
better known than they are to their country; nor could I either 
strengthen or shake the foundation of character and talent upon 
which they stand. 
But of the judicial branch of the government, and of the insti- 
tution of the Supreme Court, as the head of that branch, I beg 
to say that no man can regard it with more respect and attach- 
ment than myself. It may have friends more able, it has none 
more sincere. No conviction is deeper in my mind, than that 
the maintenance of the judicial power is essential and indis- 
pensable to the very being of this government. ‘The Constitu- 
tion without it would be no constitution; the government, no 
government. I am deeply sensible, too, and, as I think, every 
man must be whose eyes have been open to what has passed 
around him for the last twenty years, that the judicial power is 
the protecting power of the whole government. Its position is 
upon the outer wall. From the very nature of things and the 
frame of the Constitution, it forms the point at which our differ- 
ent systems of government meet in collision, when collision un- 
happily exists. By the absolute necessity of the case, the mem- 
bers of the Supreme Court become judges of the extent of 
constitutional powers. ‘They are, if I may so call them, the 


- 


THE JUDICIARY. 177 


great arbitrators between contending sovereignties. Every man 
is able to see how delicate and how critical must be the exer- 
cise of such powers in free and popular governments. Suspicion 
and jealousy are easily excited, under such circumstances, against 
a body, necessarily few in number, and possessing by the Con- 
stitution a permanent tenure of office. While public men in 
more popular parts of the. government may escape without re- 
buke, notwithstanding they may sometimes act upon opinions 
which are not acceptable, that impunity is not to be expected in 
behalf of judicial tribunals. It cannot but have attracted obser- 
vation, that, in the history of our government, the courts have 
not been able to avoid severe, and sometimes angry complaint, 
for giving their sanction to those public measures which the rep- 
resentatives of the people had adopted without exciting particular 
disquietude. Members of this and the other house of Congress, 
acting voluntarily, and in the exercise of their general discretion, 
have enacted laws without incurring an uncommon degree of 
dislike or resentment; and yet, when those very laws have been 
brought before the court, and the question of their validity has 
been distinctly raised, and is necessarily to be determined, the 
judges affirming the constitutional validity of such acts, although 
the occasion was forced upon them, and they were absolutely 
bound to express the one opinion or the other, have, neverthe- 
less, not escaped a severity of reproach bordering upon the very 
verge of denunciation. ‘This experience, while it teaches us the 
dangers which environ this department, instructs us most per- 
suasively in its importance. Jor its own security, and the secu- 
rity of the other branches of the government, it requires such an 
extraordinary union of discretion and firmness, of ability and 
moderation, that nothing in the country is too distinguished for 
sober sense or too gifted with powerful talent, te fill the situa- 
tions belonging to it. 


THE PANAMA MISSION- 


Tue following resolution being under consideration, in committee of 
the whole House upon the state of the Union, viz. : — 

‘¢ Resolved, That in the opinion of the House it is expedient to ap- 
propriate the funds necessary to enable the President of the United 
States to send ministers to the Congress of Panama” ;— 

Mr. McLane of Delaware submitted the following amendment there- 
to, viz. : — 

‘“‘It being understood as the opinion of this House, that, as it has al- 
ways been the settled policy of this government, in extending our com- 
mercial relations with foreign nations, to have with them as little politi- 
cal connection as possible, to preserve peace, commerce, and friendship 
with all nations, and to form entangling alliances with none ; the minis- 
ters who may be sent shall attend at the said Congress in a diplomatic 
character merely, and ought not to be authorized to discuss, consider, 
or consult, upon any proposition of alliance, offensive or defensive, 
between this country and any of the Spanish American governments, 
or any stipulation, compact, or declaration, binding the United States in 
any way, or to any extent, to resist interference from abroad with the 
domestic concerns of the aforesaid governments ; or any measure which 
shall commit the present or future neutral rights or duties of these 
United States, either as may regard European nations, or between the 
several states of Mexico and South America; leaving the United States 
free to adopt, in any event which may happen, affecting the relations 
of the South American governments with each other, or with foreign 
nations, such measures as the friendly disposition cherished by the 
American people towards the people of those states, and the honor and 
interest of this nation, may require ” ; — 

To which Mr. Rives of Virginia proposed to add, after the words 
‘aforesaid governments,” the following : — 


* A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, 
on the 14th of April, 1826. 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 179 


“ Or any compact or engagement by which the United States shall be 
pledged to the Spanish Arnerican states, to maintain, by force, the prin- 
ciple that no part of the American continent is henceforward subject to 
colonization by any European power.” 

The preceding motions to amend being under consideration, Mr. Web- 
ster addressed the committee as follows. 


Mr. Cuatrman, — I am not ambitious of amplifying this dis- 
cussion. On the contrary, it is my anxious wish to confine the 
debate, so far as I partake in it, to the real and material ques- 
tions before us. 

Our judgment of things is liable, doubtless, to be influenced by 
our opinions of men. It would be affectation in me, or in any 
one, to claim an exemption from this possibility of bias. I can 
say, however, that it has been my sincere purpose to consider 
and discuss the present subject with the single view of finding 
out what duty it devolves upon me, as a member of the House 
of Representatives. If any thing has diverted me from that sole 
aim, it has been against my intention. 

I think, Sir, that there are two questions, and two only, for our 
decision. The first is, whether the House of Representatives 
will assume the responsibility of withholding the ordinary ap- 
propriation for carrying into effect an executive measure, which 
the executive department has constitutionally instituted. ‘The 
second, whether, if it will not withhold the appropriation, it 
will yet take the responsibility of interposing, with its own 
opinions, directions, or instructions, as to the manner in which 
this particular executive measure shall be conducted. 

I am, certainly, in the negative, on both these questions. I 
am neither willing to refuse the appropriation, nor am I will- 
ing to limit or restrain the discretion of the executive, before- 
hand, as to'the manner in which it shall perform its own ap- 
propriate constitutional duties. And, Sir, those of us who hold 
these opinions have the advantage of being on the common 
highway of our national politics. "We propose nothing new; 
we suggest no change; we adhere to the uniform practice of 
the government, as I understand it, from its origin. It is for 
those, on the other hand, who are in favor of either, or both, of 
the propositions, to show us the cogent reasons which recom- 
mend their adoption. It is their duty to satisfy the House and 


180 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


the country that there is something in the present occasion which 
calls for such an extraordinary and unprecedented interference. 

The President and Senate have instituted a public mission, 
for the purpose of treating with foreign states. 'The Constitu- 
tion gives to the President the power of appointing, with the 
consent of the Senate, ambassadors and other public ministers. 
Such appointment is, therefore, a clear and unquestionable ex- 
ercise of executive power. It is, indeed, less connected with 
the appropriate duties of this House, than almost any other ex 
ecutive act; because the office of a public minister is not cre- 
ated by any statute or law of our own government. It exists 
under the law of nations, and is recognized as existing by our 
Constitution. The acts of Congress, indeed, limit the salaries 
of public ministers; but they do no more. Every thing else in 
regard to the appointment of public ministers, — their numbers, 
the time of their appointment, and the negotiations contemplated 
in such appointments, — is matter for executive discretion. Ev- 
ery new appointment to supply vacancies in existing missions 
is under the same authority. There are, indeed, what we com- 
monly term standing missions, so known in the practice of the 
government, but they are not made permanent by any law. All 
missions rest on the same ground. Now the question is, wheth- 
er, the President and Senate having created this mission, or, in 
other words, having appointed the ministers, in the exercise of 
their undoubted constitutional power, this House will take upon 
itself the responsibility of defeating its objects, and rendering 
this exercise of executive power void ? 

By voting the salaries in the ordinary way, we assume, as it 
seems to me, no responsibility whatever. We merely empower 
another branch of the government to discharge its own appro- 
priate duties, in that mode which seems to itself most conducive 
to the public interests. We are, by so voting, no more responsi- 
ble for the manner in which the negotiation shall be conducted, 
than we are for the manner in which one of the heads of depart- 
ment may discharge the duties of his office. 

On the other hand, if we withhold the ordinary means, we do 
incur a heavy responsibility. We interfere, as it seems to me, 
to prevent the action of the government, according to constitu- 
tional forms and provisions. It ought constantly to be remem- 
bered, that our whole power in the case is merely incidental. It 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 18] 


is only because public ministers must have salaries, like other 
officers, and because no salaries can be paid but by our vote, 
that the subject is referred to us at all. ‘The Constitution vests 
the power of appointment in the President and Senate; the law 
gives to the President even the power of fixing the amount of 
salary, within certain limits; and the only question here is upon 
the appropriation. ‘There is no doubt that we have the power, 
if we see fit to exercise it, to break up the mission, by withhold- 
ing the salaries. We have power also to break up the court, by 
withholding the salaries of the judges, or to break up the office 
of President, by withholding the salary provided for it by law. 
All these things, it is true, we have the power to do, since 
we hold the keys of the treasury. But, then, can we right- 
fully exercise this power? The gentleman from Pennsylvania," 
with whom I have great pleasure in concurring on this part 
of the case, while I regret that I differ with him on others, 
has placed this question in a point of view which cannot be im- 
proved. These officers do, indeed, already exist. ‘They are 
public ministers. If they were to negotiate a treaty, and the Sen- 
ate should ratify it, it would become a law of the land, whether 
we voted their salaries or not. This shows that the Constitution 
never contemplated that the House of Representatives should 
act a part in originating negotiations or concluding treaties. 

I know, Sir, it is a useless labor to discuss the kind of power 
which this House incidentally holds in these cases. Men will 
differ in that particular; and as the forms of public business 
and of the Constitution are such that the power may be exer- 
cised by this House, there will always be some, or always may 
be some, who feel inclined to exercise it. For myself, I feel 
bound not to step out of my own sphere, and neither to exer- 
cise or control any authority, of which the Constitution has 
intended to lodge the free and unrestrained exercise in other 
hands. Cases of extreme necessity, in which a regard to public 
safety is to be the supreme law, or rather to take place of all 
law, must be allowed to provide for themselves when they arise. 
Arguments drawn from such possible cases will shed no light on 
the general path of our constitutional duty. 

Mr. Chairman, I have an habitual and very sincere respect for 


* Mr. Buchanan. 
VOL. III. 16 


182 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


~~ 


the opinions of the gentleman from Delaware. And I can say 
with truth, that he is the last man in the House from whom I 
should have looked for this proposition of amendment, or from 
whom I should have expected to hear some of the reasons which 
he has given in its support. He says, that, in this matter, the 
source from which the measure springs should have no influence 
with us whatever. JI do not comprehend this; and I cannot but 
think the honorable gentleman has been surprised into an ex- 
pression which does not convey his meaning. ‘This measure 
comes from the executive, and it is an appropriate exercise of 
executive power. How is it, then, that we are to consider it as 
entirely an open question for us,—as if it were a legislative 
measure originating with ourselves? In deciding whether we 
will enable the executive to exercise his own duties, are we to 
consider whether we should have exercised them in the same way 
ourselves? And if we differ in opinion with the President and 
Senate, are we on that account to refuse the ordinary means? 
I think not; unless we mean to say that we will ourselves 
exercise all the powers of the government. 

But the gentleman argues, that, although generally such a 
course would not be proper, yet in the present case the Presi- 
dent has especially referred the matter to our opinion; that he 
has thrown off, or attempted to throw off, his own constitutional 
responsibility ; or at least, that he proposes to divide it with us; 
that he requests our advice, and that we, having referred that 
request to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, have now received 
from that committee their report thereon. 

Sir, this appears to me a very mistaken view of the subject; 
but if it were all so, if our advice and opinion had thus been 
asked, it would not alter the line of our duty. We cannot take, 
though it were offered, any share in executive duty. We can- 
not divide their own proper responsibility with other branches 
of the government. 'The President cannot properly ask, and we 
cannot properly give, our advice, as to the manner in which he 
shall discharge his duties. He cannot shift the responsibility 
from himself; and we cannot assume it. Such a course, Sir, 
~-would confound all that is distinct in our respective constitu- 
tional functions. It would break down all known divisions of 
power, and put an end to all just responsibility. If the Presi- 
dent were to receive directions or advice from us, in things per- 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 183 


taining to the duties of his own office, what would become of his 
responsibility to us and to the Senate? We hold the impeach- 
ing power. We are to bring him to trial in any case of mal- 
administration. ‘he Senate are to judge him by the Constitu- 
tion and laws; and it would be singular indeed, if, when such 
occasion should arise, the party accused should have the means 
of sheltering himself under the advice or opinions of his ac- 
eusers. Nothing can be more incorrect or more dangerous 
than this pledging the House beforehand to any opinion as to 
the manner of discharging executive duties. 

But, Sir, I see no evidence whatever that the President has 
asked us to take this measure upon ourselves, or to divide the 
responsibility of it with him. I see no such invitation or re- 
quest. ‘I'he Senate having concurred in the mission, the Presi- 
dent has sent a message requesting the appropriation, in the 
usual and common form. In answer to a call of the House, an- 
other message is sent, communicating the correspondence, and 
setting forth the objects of the mission. It is contended, that 
by this message he asks our advice, or refers the subject to our 
opinion. Ido not so understand it. Our concurrence, he says, 
by making the appropriation, is subject to our free determina- 
tion. Doubtless it is so. If we determine at all, we shall deter- 
mine freely; and the message does no more than leave to our- 
selves to decide how far we feel ourselves bound, either to 
support or to thwart the executive department, in the exercise of 
its duties. ‘There is no message, no document, no communica- 
tion to us, which asks for our concurrence, otherwise than as we 
shall manifest it by making the appropriation. 

Undoubtedly, Sir, the President would be glad to know that 
the measure met the approbation of the House. He must be 
aware, unquestionably, that all leading measures mainly depend 
for success on the support of Congress. Still, there is no 
evidence that on this occasion he has sought to throw off respon- 
sibility from himself, or that he desires us to be answerable for 
any thing beyond the discharge of our own constitutional duties. 
I have already said, Sir, that I know of no precedent for such a 
proceeding as the amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
Delaware. None which I think analogous has been cited. The 
resolution of the House, some years ago, on the subject of the 
slave-trade, is a precedent the other way. A committee had re- 


184 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


ported that, in order to put an end to the slave-trade, a mutual 
right of search might be admitted and arranged by negotiation. 
But this opinion was not incorporated, as the gentleman now 
proposes to incorporate his amendment, into the resolution of 
the House. 'The resolution only declared, in general terms, that 
the President be requested to enter upon such negotiations with 
other powers as he might deem expedient, for the effectual abo- 
lition of the African slave-trade. It is singular enough, and 
may serve as an admonition on the present occasion, that, a 
negotiation having been concluded, in conformity to the opinions 
expressed, not, indeed, by the House, but by the committee, the 
treaty, when laid before the Senate, was rejected by that body. 
The gentleman from Delaware himself says, that the Con- 
stitutional responsibility pertains alone to the executive depart- 
ment, and that none other has to do with it, as a public measure. 
These admissions seem to me to conclude the question; be- 
cause, in the first place, if the constitutional responsibility ap- 
pertains alone to the President, he cannot devolve it on us if he 
would; and because, in the second place, I see no proof of any in- 
tention on his part so to devolve it on us, even if he had the power. 
Mr. Chairman, I will here take occasion, in order to prevent 
misapprehension, to observe, that no one is more convinced than 
I am, that it is the right of this House, and often its duty, to 
express its general opinion in regard to questions of foreign 
policy. Nothing, certainly, is more proper. I have concurred 
in such proceedings, and am ready to do so again. On those 
great subjects, for instance, which form the leading topics in this 
discussion, it is not only the right of the House to express its 
opinions, but I think it its duty to do so, if it should suppose the 
executive to be pursuing a general course of policy which the 
House itself will not ultimately approve. But that is something 
entirely different from the present suggestion. Here it is pro- 
posed to decide, by our vote, what shall be discussed by particu- 
Jar ministers, already appointed, when they shall meet the min- 
isters of the other powers. ‘This is not a general expression of 
opinion. It is a particular direction, or a special instruction. 
Its operation is limited to the conduct of particular men, on a 
particular occasion. Such a thing, Sir, is wholly unprecedented 
ia our history. When the House proceeds in the accustomed 
way, by general resolution, its sentiments apply, as far as ex- 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 185 


pressed, to all public agents, and on all occasions. They apply 
to the whole course of policy, and must necessarily be felt every- 
where. But if we proceed by way of direction to particular 
ministers, we must direct them all. In short, we must take upon 
ourselves to furnish diplomatic instructions in all cases. 

We now propose to prescribe what our ministers shall discuss, 
and what they shall not discuss, at Panama. But there is no 
subject coming up for discussion at Panama, which might not 
also be proposed for discussion either here, or at Mexico, or in 
the capital of Colombia. If we direct what our ministers. at 
Panama shall or shall not say on the subject of Mr. Monroc’s 
declaration, for example, why should we not proceed to say also 
what our other ministers abroad, or our Secretary at home, shall 
say on the same subject? ‘There is precisely the same reason 
for the one as for the other. ‘The course of the House hitherto, 
Sir, has not been such. It has expressed its opinions, when it 
deemed proper to express them at all, on great leading questions, 
by resolution, and in a general form. ‘These general opinions, 
being thus made known, have doubtless always had, and such 
expressions. of opinion doubtless always will have, their eflect. 
This is the practice of the government. It is a salutary prac- 
tice; but if we carry it further, or rather if we adopt a very dil- 
ferent practice, and undertake to prescribe to our public minis- 
ters what they shall discuss, and what they shall not discuss, we 
take upon ourselves that which, in my judgment, does not at all 
belong to us. I see no more propriety in our deciding now in 
what manner these ministers shall discharge their duty, than 
there would have been in our prescribing to the President and 
Senate what persons ought to be appointed ministers. 

An honorable member from Virginia,* who spoke some days 
ago, seems to go still further than the member from Delaware. 
He maintains, that we may distinguish between the various ob- 
jects contemplated by the executive in the proposed negotiation, 
and adopt some and reject others. And this high, delicate, and 
important trust, the gentleman deduces simply from our power 
to withhold the ministers’ salaries. ‘The process of the genile- 
man’s argument appears to me as singular as its conciusion. 
He founds himself on the legal maxim, that he who has the 


* Mr. Rives. 
16° 


186 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


power to give may annex to the gift whatever condition or quali- 
fication he chooses. This maxim, Sir, would be applicable to 
the present case, if we were the sovereigns of the country; if 
all power were in our hands; if the public money were entirely 
our own; if our appropriation of it were mere grace and fayor; 
and if there were no restraints upon us but our own sovereign 
will and pleasure. But the argument totally forgets that we are 
ourselves but public agents; that our power over the treasury is 
but that of stewards over a trust fund; that we have nothing to 
give, and therefore no gifts to limit or qualify; that it is as 
much our duty to appropriate to proper objects, as to withhold 
appropriations from such as are improper; and that it is as 
much, and as clearly, our duty to appropriate in a proper and 
constitutional manner, as to appropriate at all. 

The same honorable member advanced another idea, in which 
I cannot concur. He does not admit that confidence is to be 
reposed in the executive, on the present occasion, because con- 
fidence, he argues, implies only that, not knowing ourselves 
what will be done in a given case by others, we trust those who 
are to act in it, that they will act right; and as we know the 
course likely to be pursued in regard to this subject by the ex- 
ecutive, confidence can have no place. This seems a singular 
notion of confidence, and certainly is not my notion of that con- 
fidence which the Constitution requires one branch of the gov- 
ernment to repose in another. The President is not our agent, 
but, like ourselves, the agent of the people. ‘They have trusted 
to his hands the proper duties of his office; and we are not to 
take those duties out of his hands, from any opinion of our 
own that we should execute them better ourselves. The confi- 
dence which is due from us to the executive, and from the ex» 
ecutive to us, is not personal, but official and constitutional. It 
has nothing to do with individual likings or dislikings; but 
results from that division of power among departments, and 
those limitations on the authority of each, which belong to the 
nature and frame of our government. Jt would be unfortunate 
indeed, if our line of constitutional action were to vibrate 
backward and forward, according to our opinions of persons, 
swerving this way to-day, from undue attachment, and the other 
way to-morrow, from distrust or dislike. ‘This may sometimes 
happen from the weakness of our virtues, or the excitement of 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 187 


our passions; but I trust it will not be coolly recommended to 
us, as the rightful course of public conduct. 

It is obvious to remark, Mr. Chairman, that the Senate have 
not undertaken to give directions or instructions in this case. 
That body is closely connected with the President in executive 
measures. Its consent to these very appointments is made ab- 
solutely necessary by the Constitution; yet it has not seen fit, 
in this or any other case, to take upon itself the responsibility of 
directing the mode in which the negotiations should be con- 
ducted. 

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am for giving no instruc- 
tions, advice, or directions in the case. I prefer leaving it where, 
in my judgment, the Constitution has left it; to executive dis- 
cretion and executive responsibility. 

But, Sir, I think there are other objections to the amendment. 
There are parts of it which I could not agree to, if it were 
proper to attach any such condition to our vote. As to all that 
part of the amendment, indeed, which asserts the neutral policy 
of the United States, and the inexpediency of forming alliances, 
no man assents to those sentiments more readily, or more en- 
tirely, than myself. On these points we are all agreed. Such 
is Our opinion; such, the President assures us, in terms, is his 
opinion; such we know to be the opinion of the country. If it 
be thought necessary to affirm opinions which no one either 
denies or doubts, by a resolution of the House, I shall cheerfully 
concur in it. But there is one part of the proposed amendment 
to which I could not agree in any form. I wish to ask the gen- 
tleman from Delaware himself to reconsider it. I pray him to 
look at it again, and to see whether he means what it expresses 
or implies; for, on this occasion, I should be more gratified by 
seeing that the honorable gentleman himself had become sensi- 
ble that he had fallen into some error in this respect, than by 
seeing the vote of the House against him by any majority what- 
ever. 

That part of the amendment to which I now object is that 
which requires, as a condition of the resolution before us, that 
the ministers shall not “be authorized to discuss, consider, or 
consult upon any measure which shall commit the present or 
future neutral rights or duties of these United States, either as 
may regard European nations, or between the several states of 
Mexico and South America.” 


188 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


I need hardly repeat, that this amounts to a precise instruc 
tion. It being understood that the ministers shall not be au- 
thorized to discuss particular subjects, is a mode of speech pre- 
cisely equivalent to saying, “ provided the ministers be instruct- 
ed,” or “the ministers being instructed, not to discuss those sub- 
jects.” Notwithstanding all that has been said, or can be said, 
about this amendment being no more than a general expression 
of opinion, or an abstract proposition, this part of it is an exact 
and definite instruction. It prescribes to public ministers the 
precise manner in which they are to conduct a public negotia- 
tion; a duty manifestly and exclusively belonging, in my judg- 
ment, to the executive, and not to us. 

But if we possessed the power to give instructions, this in- 
struction would not be a proper one to give. Let us examine it. 
The ministers shall not “ discuss, consider, or consult upon any 
measure which shall commit the present or future neutral rights 
or duties of these United States, either as may regard European 
nations, or between the several states of Mexico and South 
America.” 

Now, Sir, in the first place, it is to be observed that they are 
not only not to agree to any such measure, but they are not to 
discuss it. If proposed to them, they are not to give reasons 
for declining it. Indeed, they cannot reject it; they can only 
say they are not authorized to consider it. Would it not be 
better, Sir, to leave these agents at liberty to explain the policy 
of our government, fully and clearly, and to show the reasons 
which induce us to abstain, as far as possible, from foreign con- 
nections, and to act in all things with a scrupulous regard to 
the duties of neutrality ? 

But again; they are to discuss no measure which may com- 
mit our neutral rights or duties. ‘To commit is somewhat in- 
definite. May they not modify or in any degree alter our 
neutral rights and duties? If not, I hardly know whether a 
common treaty of commerce could be negotiated; because all 
such treaties affect or modify, more or less, the neutral rights or 
duties of the parties; especially all such treaties as our habitual 
policy leads us to form. But I suppose the author of the 
amendment uses the word in a larger and higher sense. He 
means that the ministers shall not discuss or consider any meas- 
ure which may have a tendency, in any degree, to place us ina 


2 ” onl ng _ ” 
ee ee 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 189 


hostile attitude towards any foreign state. And here, again, one 
cannot help repeating, that the prohibition is, not against propos- 
ing or assenting to any such measure, but against considering it, 
‘against answering it if proposed, against resisting it with reasons. 

But if this objection were removed, still the instruction could 
not properly be given. What important or leading measure is 
there, connected with our foreign relations, which can be adopt- 
ed without the possibility of committing us to the necessity of a 
hostile attitude? Any assertion of our plainest rights may, by 
possibility, have that effect. The author of the amendment 
seems to suppose that our pacific relations can never be changed 
‘but by our own option. He seems not to be aware that other 
states may compel us, in defence of our own rights, to meas- 
ures which, in their ultimate tendency, may commit our neu- 
trality. Let me ask, if the ministers of other powers, at Pana- 
ma, should signify to our agents that it was in contemplation 
immediately to take some measure which these agents knew to 
be hostile to our policy, adverse to our rights, and such as we 
could not submit to; should they be left free to speak the senti- 
ments of their government, to protest against the measure, and 
to declare that the United States would not see it carried into 
effect? Or should they, as this amendment proposes, be en- 
joined to silence, to let the measure proceed, in order that after- 
wards, when perhaps we have gone to war to redress the evil, we 
may learn that, if our objections had been fairly and frankly stat- 
ed, the step would not have been taken? Look, Sir, to the very 
case of Cuba, the most delicate and vastly the most important 
point in all our foreign relations. Do gentlemen think they 
exhibit skill or statesmanship in laying such restraints as they 
propose on our ministers, in regard to this among other sub< 
jects? It has been made matter of complaint, that the execu: 
tive has not used, already, a more decisive tone towards Mexico 
and Colombia, in regard to their designs on this island. Pray, 
Sir, what tone could be taken under these instructions? Not 
one word, not one single word, could be said on the subject. If 
asked whether the United States would consent to the occupa- 
tion of that island by those republics, or to its transfer by Spain 
to a European power, or whether we should resist such occu- 
pation or such transfer, what could they say? “ 'That is a mat- 
ter we cannot discuss, and cannot consider; it would commir 


190 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


our neutral relations; we are not at liberty to express the senti- 
ments of our government on the subject; we have nothing at ail 
to say.” Is this, Sir, what the gentlemen wish, or what they 
would recommend ? 

If, Sir, we give these instructions, and they should be obeyed, 
and inconvenience or evil result, who is answerable? And I 
suppose it is expected they will be obeyed. Certainly it cannot 
be intended to give them, and not take the responsibility of the 
consequences, if they are followed. It cannot be intended to 
hold the President answerable both ways; first, to compel him 
to obey our instructions, and, secondly, to make him responsible 
if evil comes from obeying them. 

Sir, events may change. If we had the power to give instruc- 
tions, and if these proposed instructions were proper to be given, 
before we arrive at our own homes affairs may take a new di- 
rection, and’ the public interest require new and corresponding 
orders to. our agents abroad. 

This is said to be an extraordinary case, and, on that account, 
to justify our interference. If the fact were true, the consequence 
would not follow. If it be the exercise of a power assigned by 
the Constitution to the executive, it can make no difference 
whether the occasion be common or uncommon. But, in truth, 
there have been much stronger cases for the interference of the 
House, where, nevertheless, the House has not interfered. For 
example, in the negotiations for peace carried on at Ghent. In 
that case, Congress, by both houses, had declared war for cer- 
tain alleged causes. After the war had lasted some years, the 
President, with the advice of the Senate, appointed ministers to _ 
treat of peace; and he gave them such instructions as he saw 
fit. Now, as the war was declared by Congress, and was waged 
to obtain certain ends, it would have been plausible to say that 
Congress ought to know the instructions under which peace 
was to be negotiated, that they might see whether the objects 
for which the war was declared had been abandoned. Yet no 
such claim was set up. ‘The President gave instructions such 
as his judgment dictated, and neither house asserted any right 
of interference. , 

Sir, there are gentlemen in this House, opposed to this mis- 
sion, who, I hope, will nevertheless consider this question of 
amendment on general constitutional grounds. ‘They are gen- 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 191 


tlemen of much estimation in the community, likely, I hope, 
long to continue in the public service; and I trust they will 
well reflect on the effect of this amendment on the separate 
powers and duties of the several departments of the govern- 
ment. 

An honorable member from Pennsylvania* has alluded to 
a resolution introduced by me the session before the last. I 
should not have referred to it myself, had he not invited the 
reference; but Iam happy in the opportunity of showing how 
that resolution coincides with every thing which I say to- 
day. What was that resolution? When an interesting people 
were struggling for national existence against a barbarous des- 
potism, when there were good hopes (hopes yet, I trust, to be 
fully realized) of their success, and when the Holy Alliance had 
pronounced against- them certain false and abominable doc- 
trines, I moved the House to resolve—what? Simply that 
provision ought to be made by law to defray the expense of an 
agent or commissioner to that country, whenever the President 
should deem it expedient to make such appointment. Did I 
propose any instruction to the President, or any limit on his dis- 
cretion? None at all, Sir; none at all. What resemblance, 
then, can be found between that resolution and this amend- 
ment? Let those who think any such resemblance exists 
adopt, if they will, the words of the resolution as a substitute 
for this amendment. We shall gladly take them. 

I am therefore, Mr. Chairman, against the amendment, not 
only as not being a proper manner of exercising any power be- 
longing to this House, but also as not containing instructions 
fit to be given if we possessed the power of giving them. And 
as my vote will rest on these grounds, I might terminate my re- 
marks here; but the discussion has extended over a broader 
surface, and, following where others have led, I will ask your in- 
dulgence to a few observations on the more general topics of the 
debate. 

Mr. Chairman, it is our fortune to be called upon to act our 
part as public men at a most interesting era in human affairs. 
The short period of your life and of mine has been thick and 
crowded with the most important events. Not only new inter- 
ests and new relations have sprung up among states, but new 


* Mr. Hemphill. 


192 : THE PANAMA MISSION. 


societies, new nations, and families of nations, have risen to take 
their places and perform their parts in the order and the inter- 
course of the world. Every man aspiring to the character of a 
statesman must endeavor to enlarge his views to meet this new 
state of things. He must aim at an adequate comprehension of it, 
and instead of being satisfied with that narrow political sagacity, 
which, like the power of minute vision, sees small things accu- 
rately, but can see nothing else, he must look to the far horizon, 
and embrace in his broad survey whatever the series of recent 
events has brought into connection, near or remote, with the 
country whose interests he studies to serve. 

We have seen efght states, formed out of colonies on our 
own continent, assume the rank of nations. ‘This is a mighty 
revolution, and when we consider what an extent of the surface 
of the globe they cover, through what climates they extend, what 
population they contain, and what new impulses they must de- 
rive from this change of government, we cannot but perceive 
that great effects are likely to be produced on the intercourse 
and the interests of the civilized world. Indeed, it has been for- 
cibly said, by the intelligent and distinguished statesman who 
conducts the foreign relations of England,* that when we now 
speak of Europe and the world, we mean Kurope and America; 
and that the different systems of these two portions of the globe, 
and their several and various interests, must be thoroughly stud- 
ied and nicely balanced by the statesmen of the times. 

In many respects, Sir, the European and the American na- 
tions are alike. ‘They are alike Christian states, civilized states, 
and commercial states. ‘They have access to the same common 
fountains of intelligence; they all draw from those -sources 
which belong to the whole civilized world. In knowledge and 
letters, in the arts of peace and war, they differ in degrees; but 
they bear, nevertheless, a general resemblance. On the other 
hand, in matters of government and social institution, the na- 
tions on this continent are founded upon principles which never 
did prevail, to considerable extent, either at any other time or in 
any other place. There has never been presented to the mind 
of man a more interesting subject of contemplation than the 
establishment of so many nations in America, partaking in the 
civilization and in the arts of the Old World, but having left be- 


* Mr. Canning. 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 1938 


hind them those cumbrous institutions which had their origin in 
a dark and military age. Whatsoever European experience has 
developed favorable to the freedom and the happiness of man, 
whatever European genius has invented for his improvement or 
gratification, whatsoever of refinement or polish the culture of 
European society presents for his adoption and enjoyment, — 
all this is offered to man in America, with the additional advan- 
tage of the full power of erecting forms of government on free 
and simple principles, without overturning institutions suited to 
times long passed, but too strongly supported, either by interests 
or prejudices, to be shaken without convulsions. ‘This unprece- 
dented state of things presents the happiest of all occasions for 
an attempt to establish national intercourse upon improved 
principles, upon principles tending to peace and the mutual 
prosperity of nations. In this respect America, the whole of 
America, has a new career before her. If we look back on the 
history of Europe, we see for how great a portion of the last two 
centuries her states have been at war for interests connected 
mainly with her feudal monarchies. Wars for particular dynas- 
ties, wars to support or prevent particular successions, wars to 
enlarge or curtail the dominions of particular crowns, wars to 
support or to dissolve family alliances, wars to enforce or to 
resist religious intolerance, — what long and bloody chapters do 
not these fill in the history of European politics! Who does 
not see, and who does not rejoice to see, that America has a 
glorious chance of escaping at least these causes of contention ? 
Who does not see, and who does not rejoice to see, that, on this 
continent, under other forms of government, we have before us 
the noble hope of being able, by the mere influence of civil lib- 
erty and religious toleration, to dry up these outpouring foun- 
tains of blood, and to extinguish these consuming fires of war. 
The general opinion of the age favors such hopes and such 
prospects. ‘There is a growing disposition to treat the inter- 
course of nations more like the useful intercourse of friends; 
philosophy, just views of national advantage, good sense, the 
dictates of a common religion, and an increasing conviction that 
war is not the interest of the human race, all concur to magnify 
the importance of this new accession to the list of nations. 

We have heard it said, Sir, that the topic of South American 
independence is worn out, and threadbare. Such it may be 

VOL. III. iY; 


194 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


Sir, to those who have contemplated it merely as an article of 
news, like the fluctuation of the markets, or the rise and fall 
of stocks. Such it may be to those who can see no conse- 
quences following from these great events. But whoever has 
either understood their present importance, or can at all esti- 
mate their future influence, whoever has reflected on the new 
relations they introduce with other states, whoever, among our- 
selves especially, has meditated on the new relations which we 
now bear to them, and the striking attitude in which we our- 
selves are now placed, as the oldest of the American nations, 
will feel that the topic can never be without interest; and will 
be sensible that, whether we are wise enough to perceive it or 
not, the establishment of South American independence will 
affect all nations, and ourselves perhaps more than any other, 
through all coming time. 

But, Sir, sithouet the independence of these new states 
seems effectually aeeomicheneds yet a lingering and hopeless war 
is kept up against them bv Spain. ‘This is greatly to be regret- 
ted by all nations. ‘To Spain it is, as every reasonable man 
sees, useless, and without hope. ‘To the new states themselves 
it is burdensome and af_llictive. To the commerce of neutral 
nations it is annoying and vexatious. ‘l'here seems to be some- 
thing of the pertinacity of the Spanish character in holding on 
in such a desperate course. It reminds us of the seventy years 
during which Spain resisted the independence of Holland. I 
think, however, that there is some reason to believe that the war 
approaches its end. I believe that the measures adopted by 
our own government have had an effect in tending to produce 
that result. I understand, at least, that the question of recog- 
nition has been taken into consideration by the Spanish govern- 
ment; and it may be hoped that a war which Spain finds to be 
so expensive, which the whole world tells her is so hopeless, and 
which, if continued, now threatens her with new dangers, she 
may, ere long, have the prudence to terminate. 

Our own course during this contest between Spain and her 
colonies is well known. ‘Though entirely and strictly neutral, 
we were in favor of early recognition. Our opinions were known 
to the allied sovereigns when in congress at Aix-la-Chapelle 
in 1818, at which time the affairs of Spain and her colonies 
were under consideration; and probably the knowledge of those 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 195 


sentiments, together with the policy adopted by England, pre- 
vented any interference by other powers at that time. Yet we 
have treated Spain with scrupulous delicacy. We acted on the 
ease as one of civil war. We treated with the new govern- 
ments as governments de facto. Not questioning the right of 
Spain to reduce them to their old obedience, if she had the 
power, we yet held it to be our right to deal with them as with 
existing governments in fact, when the moment arrived at which 
it became apparent and manifest that the dominion of Spain 
over these, her ancient colonies, was at an end. Our right, our 
interest, and our duty, all concurred at that moment to recom- 
mend the recognition of their independence. We accordingly 
recognized it. 

Now, Sir, the history of this proposed congress goes back to 
an earlier date than that of our recognition. It commences in 
1821; and one of the treaties now before us, proposing such a 
meeting, that between Colombia and Chili, was concluded in 
July, 1822, a few months only after we had acknowledged the 
independence of the new states. The idea originated, doubt- 
less, in the wish to strengthen the union among the new govern- 
ments, and to promote the common cause of all, the effectual 
resistance to Spanish authority. As independence was at that 
time their leading object, it is natural to suppose that they con- 
templated this mode of mutual intercourse and mutual arrange- 
ment, as favorable to the concentration of purpose and of ac- 
tion necessary for the attainment of that object. But this pur- 
pose of the congress, or this leading idea, in which it may be 
supposed to have originated, has led, as it seems to me, to great 
misapprehensions as to its true character, and great mistakes in 
regard to the danger to be apprehended from our sending min- 
isters to the meeting. This meeting, Sir, is a congress; not a 
congress as the word is known to our Constitution and laws, 
for we use it in a peculiar sense; but as it is known to the law 
of nations. A congress, by the law of nations, is but an ap- 
pointed meeting for the settlement of affairs between different 
nations, in which the representatives or agents of each treat and 
negotiate as they are instructed by their own government. In 
other words, this congress is a diplomatic meeting. We are 
asked to join no government, no legislature, no league, acting 
by votes. It is a congress, such as those of Westphalia, of 


196 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


Nimeguen, of Ryswick, or of Utrecht; or such as those which 
have been held in Europe in our own time. No nation is a 
party to any thing done in such assemblies, to which it does not 
expressly make itself a party. No one’s rights are put at the 
disposition of any of the rest, or of all the rest. What minis- 
ters agree to, being afterwards duly ratified at home, binds their 
government; and nothing else binds the government. Whatso- 
ever is done, to which they do not assent, neither binds the min- 
isters nor their government, any more than if they had not been 
present. 

These truths, Sir, seem too plain and too commonplace to 
be stated. I find my apology only in those misapprehensions 
of the character of the meeting to which I have referred both 
now and formerly. It has been said that commercial treaties 
are not negotiated at such meetings. Far otherwise is the fact. 
Among the earliest of important stipulations made in favor of 
commerce and navigation, were those at Westphalia. What 
we call the treaty of Utrecht, was a bundle of treaties, negotiat- 
ed at that congress; some of peace, some of boundary, and 
others of commerce. Again, it has been said, in order to prove 
that this meeting is a sort of confederacy, that such assemblies 
are out of the way of ordinary negotiation, and are always 
founded on, and provided for, by previous treaties. Pray, Sir, 
what treaty preceded the congress at Utrecht? And the meeting 
of our plenipotentiaries with those of England at Ghent, what 
was that but a congress? and what treaty preceded it? It is 
said, again, that there is no sovereign to whom our ministers can 
be accredited. Let me ask whether, in the case last cited, our 
ministers exhibited their credentials to the Mayor of Ghent? Sir, 
the practice of nations in these matters is well known, and is 
free from difficulty. If the government be not present, agents or 
plenipotentiaries interchange their credentials. And when it is 
said that our ministers at Panama will be, not ministers, but 


deputies, members of a deliberative body, not protected in their 


public character by the public law, propositions are advanced. 
of which I see no evidence whatever, and which appear to me 
to be wholly without foundation. 

It is contended that this congress, by virtue of the treaties 
which the new states have entered into, will possess powers 
other than those of a diplomatic character, as between those 


—— 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 197 


new states themselves. If that were so, it would be unimpor- 
tant to us. ‘The real question here is, What will be our rela- 
tion with those states, by sending ministers to this congress? 
Their arrangement among themselves will not affect us. Even 
if it were a government, like our old Confederation, yet, if its 
members had authority to treat with us in behalf of their re- 
spective nations on subjects on which we have a right to treat, 
the congress might still be a very proper occasion for such ne- 
gotiations. Do gentlemen forget that the French minister was 
introduced to our old Congress, met it in its sessions, carried on 
oral discussions with it, and treated with it in behalf of the 
French king? ~All that did not make him a member of it, nor 
connect him at all with the relations which its members bore to 
each other. As he treated on the subject of carrying on the war 
against England, it was, doubtless, hostile towards that power; 
but this consequence followed from the object and nature of the 
stipulations, and not from the manner of the intercourse. The 
representatives of these South American states, it is said, will 
entertain belligerent counsels at this congress. Be it so; we 
shall not join. in such counsels. At the moment of invitation, 
our government informed the ministers of those states, that we 
could not make ourselves a party to the war between them and 
Spain, nor to counsels for deliberating on the means of its further 
prosecution. 

If, it is asked, we send ministers to a congress composed alto- 
gether of belligerents, is it not a breach of neutrality? Cer- 
tainly not; no man can say it is. Suppose, Sir, that these 
ministers from the new states, instead of Panama, were to 
assemble at Bogota, where we already have a minister; their 
counsels at that place might be belligerent, while the war should 
last with Spain. But should we on that account recall our 
minister from Bogota? The whole argument rests on this; 
that because, at the same time and place, the agents of the 
South American governments may negotiate about their own 
relations with each other, in regard to their common war against 
Spain, therefore we cannot, at the same time and place, nego 
tiate with them, or any of them, upon our own neutral and com- 
mercial relations. ‘This proposition, Sir, cannot be maintained ; 
and therefore all the inferences from it fail. 


But, Sir, I see no proof that, as between themselves, the rep- 
Lh 


198 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


resentatives of the South American states are to jrossess other 
than diplomatic powers. I refer to the treaties, which are essen- 
tially alike, and which have been often read. 

With two exceptions, (which I will notice,) the articles of 
these treaties, describing the powers of the congress, are sub- 
stantially like those of the treaty of Paris, in 1814, providing for 
the congress at Vienna. It was there stipulated that all the 
powers should send plenipotentiaries to Vienna, to regulate, in 
general congress, the arrangements to complete the provisions 
of the present treaty. Now, it might have been here asked, how 
regulate? How regulate in general congress ?—regulate by 
votes? Sir, nobody asked such questions; simply because it 
was to be a congress of plenipotentiaries. The two exceptions 
which I have mentioned are, that this congress is to actasa 
council, and to interpret treaties; but there is nothing in either 
of these to be done which may not be done diplomatically. 
What is more common than diplomatic intercourse, to explain 
and to interpret treaties? Or what more frequent than that na- 
tions, having a common object, interchange mutual counsels and 
advice, through the medium of their respective ministers? To 
bring this matter, Sir, to the test, let me ask, When these minis- 
ters assemble at Panama, can they do any thing but according 
to their instructions? Have they any organization, any power 
of action, or any rule of action, common to them all? No more, 
Sir, than the respective ministers at the congress of Vienna. 
Every thing is settled’ by the use of the word Plenipotentiary. 
That proves the meeting to be diplomatic, and nothing else. 
Who ever heard of a plenipotentiary member of the legislature ? 
a plenipotentiary burgess of a city? or a plenipotentiary knight 
of the shire ? 

We may dismiss all fears, Sir, arising from the nature of this 
meeting. Our agents will go there, if they go at all, in the 
character of ministers, protected by the public law, negotiating 
only for ourselves, and not called on to violate any neutral 
duty of their own government. If it be that this meeting will 
have other powers, in consequence of other arrangements be- 
tween other states, of which I see no proof, still we shall not be 
a party to these arrangements, nor can we be in any way affect- 
ed by them. As far as this government is concerned, nothing 
can be done but by negotiation, as in other cases. 


LE 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 199 


Tt has been affirmed, that this measure, and the sentiments 
expressed by the executive relative to its objects, are an acknowl- 
edged departure from the neutral policy of the United States. 
Sir, I deny that there is an acknowledged departure, or any de- 
parture at all, from the neutral policy of the country. What do 
we mean by our neutral policy? Not, I suppose, a blind and 
stupid indifference to whatever is passing around us; not a total 
disregard to approaching events, or approaching evils, till they 
meet us full in the face. Nor do we mean, by our neutral policy, 
that we intend never to assert our rights by force. No, Sir. We 
mean by our policy of neutrality, that the great objects of na- 
tional pursuit with us are connected with peace. We covet no 
provinces; we desire no conquests; we entertain no ambitious 
projects of aggrandizement by war. This is our policy. But it 
does not follow from this, that we rely less than other nations 
on our own power to vindicate our own rights. We know that 
the last logic of kings is also our last logic; that our own inter- 
ests must be defended and maintained by our own arm; and 
that peace or war may not always be of our own choosing. 
Our neutral policy, therefore, not only justifies, but requires, our 
anxious attention to the political events which take place in the 
world, a skilful perception of their relation to our own concerns, 
and an early anticipation of their consequences, and firm and 
timely assertion of what we hold to be our own rights and our 
own interests. Our neutrality is not a predetermined absti- 
nence, either from remonstrances, or from force. Our neutral 
policy is a policy that protects neutrality, that defends neutrality, 
that takes up arms, if need be, for neutrality. When it is said, 
therefore, that this measure departs from our neutral policy, 
either that policy, or the measure itself, is misunderstood. It 
implies either that the object or the tendency of the measure is 
to involve us in the war of other states, which I think cannot 
be shown, or that the assertion of our own sentiments, on points 
affecting deeply our own interests, may place us in a hostile 
attitude toward other states, and that therefore we depart from 
neutrality; whereas the truth is, that the decisive assertion and 
the firm support of these sentiments may be most essential to 
the maintenance of neutrality. 

An honorable member from Pennsylvania thinks this congress 
will bring a dark day over the United States. Doubtless, Sir, it 


200 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


is an interesting moment in our history; but I see no great 
proofs of thick-coming darkness. But the object of the remark 
seemed to be to show that the President himself saw difficulties 
on all sides, and, making a choice of evils, preferred rather to 
send ministers to this congress, than to run the risk of exciting 
the hostility of the states by refusing to send. In other words, 
the gentleman wished to prove that the President intended an 
alliance; although such intention is expressly disclaimed. 

Much commentary has been bestowed on the letters of invi- 
tation from the ministers. I shall not go through with verbal 
criticisms on these letters. ‘Their general import is plain enough. 
I shall not gather together small and minute quotations, taking 
a sentence here, a word there, and a syllable in a third place, 
dovetailing them into the course of remark, till the printed dis- 
course bristles in every line with inverted commas. I look to 
the general tenor of the invitations, and IJ find that we are asked 
to take part only in such things as concern ourselves. I look 
‘still more carefully to the answers, and I see every proper cau- 
tion and proper guard. I look to the message, and I see that 
nothing is there contemplated likely to involve us in other men’s 
quarrels, or that may justly give offence to any foreign state. 
With this I am satisfied. 

I must now ask the indulgence of the committee to an im- 
portant point in the discussion, J mean the declaration of the 
President in 1823.* Not only as a member of the House, but 
as a citizen of the country, I have an anxious desire that this 
part of our public history should stand in its proper light. The 
country has, in my judgment, a very high honor connected with 
that occurrence, which we may maintain, or which we may sac- 
rifice. I look upon it as a part of its treasures of reputation; 
and, for one, I intend to guard it. 


* Tn the message of President Monroe to Congress at the commencement of 
the session of 1823-24, the following passage occurs : — ‘‘ In the wars of the 
Kuropean powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any 
part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights 
are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries or make preparations 
for defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more 
immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened 
and impartial observers. The political system of the Allied Powers is essentially 
different, in this respect, from that of America. This difference proceeds from 
that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our 
own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and 
matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we 


_ tai 


— 22 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 201 


Sir, let us recur to the important political events which led to 
that declaration, or accompanied it. In the fall of 1822, the 
allied sovereigns held their congress at Verona. The great sub- 
ject of consideration was the condition of Spain, that country 
then being under the government of the Cortes. The question 
was, whether Ferdinand should be reinstated in all his authority, 
by the intervention of foreign force. Russia, Prussia, France, 
and Austria were inclined to that measure; England dissented 
and protested; but the course was agreed on, and France, with 
the consent of these other Continental powers, took the conduct 
of the operation into her own hands. In the spring of 1823, a 
French army was sent into Spain. Its success was complete. 
The popular government was overthrown, and Ferdinand re- 
established in all his power. This invasion, Sir, was determined 
on, and undertaken, precisely on the doctrines which the allied 
monarchs had proclaimed the year before, at Laybach; that 
is, that they had a right to interfere in the concerns of an- 
other state, and reform its government, in order to prevent the 
effects of its bad example; this bad example, be it remembered, 
always being the example of free government. Now, Sir, act- 
ing on this principle of supposed dangerous example, and hav- 
ing put down the example of the Cortes in Spain, it was nat- 
ural to inquire with what eyes they would look on the colonies 
of Spain, that were following still worse examples. Would 
King Ferdinand and his allies be content with what had been 
done in Spain itself, or would he solicit their aid, and was it 
likely they would grant it, to subdue his rebellious American 
provinces ? 

Sir, it was in this posture of affairs, on an occasion which has 
already been alluded to, that I ventured to say, early in the ses- 
sion of December, 1823, that these allied monarchs might possi- 
bly turn their attention to America ; that America came within 
have enjoyed such unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe 
it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United 
States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their 
part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to 
our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any Kuro- 
pean power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the gov- 
ernments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose in- 
dependence we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, 
we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or con= 


trolling in any other manner their destiny, in any other light than as the mani- 
festation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” 


902 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


their avowed doctrine, and that her examples might very possi- 
bly attract their notice. The doctrines of Laybach were not 
limited to any continent. Spain had colonies in America, and 
having reformed Spain herself to the true standard, it was not 
impossible that they might see fit to complete the work by rec- 
onciling, in their way, the colonies to the mother country. Now, 
Sir, it did so happen, that, as soon as the Spanish king was 
completely reéstablished, he invited the codperation of his al- 
lies, in regard to South America. In the same month of De- 
cember, of 1823, a formal invitation was addressed by Spain to 
the courts of St. Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris, propos- 
ing to establish a conference at Paris, in order that the plenipo: 
tentiaries there assembled might aid Spain in adjusting the 
affairs of her revolted provinces. These affairs were proposed tc 
be adjusted in such manner as should retain the sovereignty of 
Spain over them; and though the codperation of the allies by 
force of arms was not directly solicited, such was evidently the 
object aimed at. ‘The king of Spain, in making this request te 
the members of the Holy Alliance, argued as it has been seen 
he might argue. He quoted their own doctrines of Laybach; 
he pointed out the pernicious example of America; and he re- 
minded them that their success in Spain itself had paved the 
way for successful operations against the spirit of liberty on this 
side of the Atlantic. 

The proposed meeting, however, did not take place. Eng- 
land had already taken a decided course; for as early as Octo- 
ber, Mr. Canning, in a conference with the French minister in 
London, informed him distinctly and expressly, that England 
would consider any foreign interference, by force or by menace, 
in the dispute between Spain and the colonies, as a motive for 
recognizing the latter without delay. It is probable this deter- 
mination of the English government was known here at the com- 
mencement of the session of Congress; and it was under these 
circumstances, it was in this crisis, that Mr. Monroe’s declaration 
was made. It was not then ascertained whether a meeting of 
the allies would or would not take place, to concert with Spain 
the means of reéstablishing her power; but it was plain enough 
they would be pressed by Spain to aid her operations; and it was 
plain enough, also, that they had no particular liking to what was 
taking place on this side of the Atlantic, nor any great disinclina- 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 203 


tion to interfere. This was the posture of affairs; and, Sir, I 
concur entirely in the sentiment expressed in the resolution of a 
gentleman from Pennsylvania,” that this declaration of Mr. Mon- 
roe was wise, seasonable, and patriotic. 

It has been said, in the course of this debate, to have been a 
loose and vague declaration. It was, I believe, sufficiently 
studied. I have understood, from good authority, that it was 
considered, weighed, and distinctly and decidedly approved, by 
every one of the President’s advisers at that time. Our govern- 
ment could not adopt on that occasion precisely the course 
which England had taken. England threatened the immediate 
recognition of the provinces, if the Allies should take part with 
Spain against them. We had already recognized them. It re- 
mained, therefore, only for our government to say how we should 
consider a combination of the Allied Powers, to effect objects in 
America, as affecting ourselves; and the message was intended 
to say, what it does say, that we should regard such. combina- 
tion as dangerous to us. Sir, I agree with those who maintain 
the proposition, and I contend against those who deny it, that 
the message did mean something; that it meant much; and I 
maintain, against both, that the declaration effected much good, 
answered the end designed by it, did great honor to the foresight 
and the spirit of the government, and that it cannot now be 
taken back, retracted, or annulled, without disgrace. It met, 
Sir, with the entire concurrence and the hearty approbation of 
the country. The tone which it uttered found a corresponding 
response in the breasts of the free people of the United States. 
That people saw, and they rejoiced to see, that, on a fit occa- 
sion, our weight had been thrown into the right scale, and that, 
without departing from our duty, we had done something use- 
ful, and something effectual, for the cause of civil liberty. One 
general glow of exultation, one universal feeling of the gratified 
love of liberty, one conscious and proud perception of the con- 
sideration which the country possessed, and of the respect and 
honor which belonged to it, pervaded all bosoms. Possibly the 
public enthusiasm went too far; it certainly did go far. But, 
Sir, the sentiment which this declaration inspired was not con- 
fined to ourselves. Its force was felt everywhere, by all those 
who could understand its object and foresee its eflect. In that 


* Mr. Markley 


204 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


very House of Commons of which the gentleman from South 
Carolina has spoken with such commendation, how was it re- 
ceived? Not only, Sir, with approbation, but, I may say, with 
no little enthusiasm. While the leading minister* expressed 
his entire concurrence in the sentiments and opinions of the 
American President, his distinguished competitor} in that popu- 
lar body, less restrained by official decorum, and more at liberty 
to give utterance to all the feeling of the occasion, declared that 
no event had ever created greater joy, exultation, and gratitude 
among all the free men in Europe; that he felt pride in being 
connected by blood and language with the people of the United 
States; that the policy disclosed by the message became a 
ereat, a free, and an independent nation; and that he hoped his 
own country would be prevented by no mean pride, or paltry 
jealousy, from following so noble and glorious an example. 

It is doubtless true, as I took occasion to observe the other 
day, that this declaration must be considered as founded on our 
rights, and to spring mainly from a regard to their preservation. 
Tt did not commit us, at all events, to take up arms on any in- 
dication of hostile feeling by the powers of Europe towards 
South America. If, for example, all the states of Europe had 
refused to trade with South America until her states should 
return to their former allegiance, that would have funished no 
cause of interference to us. Or if an armament had been fur- 
nished by the Allies to act against provinces the most remote 
from us, as Chili or Buenos Ayres, the distance of the scene 
of action diminishing our apprehension of danger, and dimin- 
ishing also our means of effectual interposition, might still 
have left us to content ourselves with remonstrance. But a 
very different case would have arisen, if an army, equipped and 
maintained by these powers, had been landed on the shores of 
the Gulf of Mexico, and commenced the war in our own imme- 
diate neighborhood. Such an event might justly be regarded 
as dangerous to ourselves, and, on that ground, call for decided 
and immediate interference by us. The sentiments and the 
policy announced by the declaration, thus understood, were, 
therefore, in strict conformity to our duties and our interest. 

Sir, I look on the message of December, 1823, as forming a 
bright page in our history. I will help neither to erase it nor tear 


* Mr. Canning. — + Mr. Brougham. 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 205 


it out; nor shall it be, by any act of mine, blurred or blotted. 
It did honor to the sagacity of the government, and I will not 
diminish that honor. It elevated the hopes, and gratified the 
patriotism, of the people. Over those hopes I will not bring a 
mildew; nor will I put that gratified patriotism to shame. 

But how should it happen, Sir, that there should now be such 
a new-born fear on the subject of this declaration? ‘The crisis 
is over; the danger is past. At the time it was made, there was 
real ground for apprehension; now there is none. It was then 
possible, perhaps not improbable, that the Allied Powers might in- 
terfere with America. 'There is now no ground for any such fear. 
Most of the gentlemen who have now spoken on the subject were 
at that time here. They all heard the declaration. Not one of 
them complained. And yet now, when all danger is over, we 
are vehemently warned against the sentiments of the declaration. 

To avoid this apparent inconsistency, it is, however, contend- 
ed, that new force has been recently given to this declaration. 
But of this I see no evidence whatever. I see nothing in any 
instructions or communications from our government changing 
the character of that declaration in any degree. There is, as I 
have before said, in one of Mr. Poinsett’s letters, an inaccuracy 
of expression. If he has recited correctly his conversation with 
the Mexican minister, he did go too far, farther than any instruc- 
tion warranted. But, taking his whole correspondence together, 
it is quite manifest that he has deceived nobody, and that he has 
not committed the country. On the subject of a pledge, he put 
the Mexican minister entirely right. He stated to him distinctly, 
that this government had given no pledge which others could 
eall upon it to redeem. What could be more explicit? Again, 
Sir, it is plain that Mexico thought us under no greater pledge 
than England; for the letters to the English and American min- 
isters, requesting interference, were in precisely the same words. 
When this passage in Mr. Poinsett’s letter was first noticed, we 
were assured there was and must be some other authority for it. 
It was confidently said he had instructions authorizing it in his 
pocket. It turns out otherwise. As little ground is there to 
complain of any thing in the Secretary’s letter to Mr. Poinscett. 
It seems to me to be precisely what it should be. It does not, 
as has been alleged, propose any codperation between the gov- 
ernment of Mexico and our own. Nothing like it. It instructs 

VOL. III. 18 


206 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


our ministers to bring to the notice of the Mexican government 
the line of policy which we have marked out for ourselves, act- 
ing on our own grounds, and for our own interests; and to sug- 
gest to that government, acting on its own ground, and for its 
own interests, the propriety of following a similar course. Here, 
Sir, is no alliance, nor even any cooperation. 

So, again, as to the correspondence which refers to the appear- 
ance of the French fleet in the West India seas. Be it remem- 
bered that our government was contending, in the course of this 
correspondence with Mexico, for an equality in matters of com- 
merce. It insisted on being placed, in this respect, on the same 
footing as the other Spanish American states. ‘To enforce this 
claim, our known friendly sentiments towards Mexico, as well 
as to the rest of the new states, were suggested, and properly 
suggested. Mexico was reminded of the timely declaration 
which had been made of these sentiments. She was reminded 
that she herself had been well inclined to claim the benefit re- 
sulting from that declaration, when a French fleet appeared in 
the neighboring seas; and she was referred to the course adopted 
by our government on that occasion, with an intimation that 
she might learn from it how the same government would have 
acted if other possible contingencies had happened. What is 
there in all this of any renewed pledge, or what is there of any 
thing beyond the true line of our policy? Do gentlemen mean 
to say that the communication made to France, on this occasion, 
was improper? Do they mean to repel and repudiate that 
declaration? 'That declaration was, that we could not see Cuba 
transferred from Spain to another European power. If the 
House mean to contradict that, be it so. If it do not, then, as 
the government had acted properly in this case, it did furnish 
ground to believe it would act properly, also, in other cases, when 
they arose. And the reference to this incident or occurrence by 
the Secretary was pertinent to the argument which he was 
pressing on the Mexican government. 

I have but a word to say on the subject of the declaration 
against European colonization in America. The late Presiden. 
seems to have thought the occasion used by him for that pur- 
pose to be a proper one for the open avowal of a principle which 
had already been acted on. Great and practical inconveniences, 
it was feared, might be apprehended from the establishment of 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 207 


new colonies in America, having a Kuropean origin and a Eu- 
ropean connection. Attempts of that kind, it was obvious, 
might possibly be made, amidst the changes that were taking 
place in Mexico, as well as in the more southern states. Mex- 
ico bounds us, on a vast length of line, from the Gulf of Mexico 
to the Pacific Ocean. ‘here are many reasons why it should 
not be desired by us, that an establishment, under the protection 
of a different power, should occupy any portion of that space. 
We have a general interest, that, through all the vast territories 
rescued from the dominion of Spain, our commerce may find its 
way, protected by treaties with governments existing on the 
spot. ‘These views, and others of a similar character, rendered 
it highly desirable to us, that these new states should settle it, 
as a part of their policy, not to allow colonization within their 
respective territories. ‘True, indeed, we did not need their aid 
to assist us in maintaining such a course for ourselves; but we 
had an interest in their assertion and support of the principle as 
applicable to their own territories. 

I now proceed, Mr. Chairman, to a few remarks on the subject 
of Cuba, the most important point of our foreign relations. It 
is the hinge on which interesting events may possibly turn. I 
pray gentlemen to review their opinions on this subject before 
they fully commit themselves. I understood the honorable 
member from South Carolina to say, that if Spain chose to 
transfer this island to any power in Kurope, she had a right to 
do so, and we could not interfere to prevent it. Sir, this is a 
delicate subject. I hardly feel competent to treat it as it de- 
serves; and I am not quite willing to state here all that I think 
about it. I must, however, dissent from the opinion of the gen- 
tleman from South Carolina. The rights of nations, on subjects 
of this kind, are necessarily very much modified by circumstances. 
Because England or France could not rightfully complain of the 
transfer of Florida to us, it by no means follows, as the gentle- 
man supposes, that we could not complain of the cession of Cu- 
ba to one of them. ‘The plain difference is, that the transfer of 
Florida to us was not dangerous to the safety of either of those 
nations, nor fatal to any of their great and essential interests. 
Proximity of position, neighborhood, whatever augments the 
power of injuring and annoying, very properly belong to the con- 
sideration of all cases of this kind. ‘The greater or less facility 


208 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


of access itself is of consideration in such questions, because it 
brings, or may bring, weighty consequences with it. It justifies, 
for these reasons and on these grounds, what otherwise might 
never be thought of. By negotiation with a foreign power, Mr. 
Jefferson obtained a province. Without any alteration of our 
Constitution, we have made it part of the United States, and its 
Senators and Representatives, now coming from several States, 
are here among us. Now, Sir, if, instead of being Louisiana, 
this had been one of the provinces of Spain proper, or one of her 
South American colonies, he must have been a madman _ that 
should have proposed such an acquisition: A high conviction of 
its convenience, arising from proximity and from close natural 
connection, alone reconciled the country to the measure. Con- 
siderations of the same sort have weight in other cases. 

An honorable member from Kentucky * argues, that although 
we imight rightfully prevent another power from taking Cuba 
from Spain by force, yet, if Spain should choose to make the 
voluntary transfer, we should have no right whatever to in- 
terfere. Sir, this is a distinction without a difference. If we 
are likely to have contention about Cuba, let us first well con- 
sider what our rights are, and not commit ourselves. And, 
Sir, if we have any right to interfere at all, it applies as well to 
the case of a peaceable as to that of a forcible transfer. If na- 
tions be at war, we are not judges of the question of right in 
that war; we must acknowledge in both parties the mutual 
right of attack and the mutual right of conquest. It is not for 
us to set bounds to their belligerent operations so long as they 
do not affect ourselves. Our right to interfere in any such case 
is but the exercise of the right of reasonable and necessary self- 
defence. It is a high and delicate exercise of that right; one 
not to be made but on grounds of strong and manifest reason, 
justice, and necessity. The real question is, whether the posses- 
sion of Cuba by a great maritime power of Europe would seri- 
ously endanger our own immediate security or our essential in- 
terests. I put the question, Sir, in the language of some of the 
best considered state papers of modern times. The general rule 
of national law is, unquestionably, against interference in the 
transactions of other states. There are, however, acknowledged 


* Mr. Wickliffe. 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 209 


exceptions, growing out of circumstances and founded in those 
circumstances. ‘These exceptions, it has been properly said, 
eannot without danger be reduced to previous rule, and incor- 
porated into the ordinary diplomacy of nations. Nevertheless, 
they do exist, and must be judged of, when they arise, with a 
just regard to our own essential interests, but in a spirit of strict 
justice and delicacy also towards foreign states. 

‘The ground of these exceptions is, as I have already stated, 
self-preservation. It is not a slight injury to our interest, it is 
not even a great inconvenience, that makes out a case. ‘There 
must be danger to our security, or danger, manifest and immi- 
nent danger, to our essential rights and our essential interests. 
Now, Sir, let us look at Cuba. I need hardly refer to its pres- 
ent amount of commercial connection with the United States. 
Our statistical tables, I presume, would show us that our com- 
merce with the Havana alone is more in amount than our whole 
commercial intercourse with France and all her dependencies. 
But this is but one part of the case, and not the most important. 
Cuba, as is well said in the report of the Committee of Foreign 
Affairs, is placed in the mouth of the Mississippi. Its occupa- 
tion by a strong maritime power would be felt, in the first mo- 
ment of hostility, as far up the Mississippi and the Missouri as 
our population extends. It is the commanding point of the 
Gulf of Mexico. See, too, how it lies in the very line of our 
coastwise traffic; interposed in the very highway between 
New York and New Orleans. 

Now, Sir, who has estimated, or who can estimate, the effect 
of a change which should place this island in other hands, sub- 
ject it to new rules of commercial intercourse, or connect it wit! 
objects of a different and still more dangerous nature? Sir, I 
repeat that I feel no disposition to pursue this topic on the pres- 
ent occasion. My purpose is only to show its importance, and 
to beg gentlemen not to prejudice any rights of the country by 

ssenting to propositions, which, perhaps, it may be necessary 
hereafter to review. 

And here I differ again with the gentleman from Kentucky 
He thinks, that, in this as in other cases, we should wait till the 
event comes, without any previous declaration of our sentiments 
upon subjects important 10 our own rights or our own interests 
Sir, such declarations are often the appropriate means of pre- 

18* 


210 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


venting that which, if unprevented, it might be difficult to re- 
dress. A great object in holding diplomatic intercourse is 
frankly to expose the views and objects of nations, and to pre- 
vent, by candid explanation, collision and war. In this case, 
the government had said that we could not assent to the trans- 
fer of Cuba to another European state. Can we so assent? 
Do gentlemen think we can? If not, then it was entirely proper 
that this intimation should be frankly and seasonably made. 
Candor required it; and it would have been unpardonable, it 
would have been injustice, as well as folly, to be silent while 
we might suppose the transaction to be contemplated, and 
then to complain of it afterwards. If we should have a sub- 
sequent right to complain, we have a previous right, equally 
clear, of protesting; and if the evil be one which, when it 
comes, would allow us to apply a remedy, it not only allows 
us, but it makes it our duty, also to apply prevention. 

But, Sir, while some gentlemen have maintained that on the 
subject of a transfer to any of the European powers the Presi- 
dent has said too much, others insist that on that of the occupa- 
tion of the island by Mexico or Colombia he has said and done 
too little. I presume, Sir, for my own part, that the strongest 
language has been directed to the source of greatest danger. 
Heretofore that danger was, doubtless, greatest which was ap- 
prehended from a voluntary transfer. ‘The other has been met 
as it arose; and, thus far, adequately and sufficiently met. 

And here, Sir, I cannot but say that I never knew a more ex- 
traordinary argument than we have heard on the conduct of the 
executive on this part of the case. The President is charged 
with inconsistency; and in order to make this out, public de- 
spatches are read, which, it is said, militate with one another. 

Sir, what are the facts? This government saw fit to invite 
the Emperor of Russia to use his endeavors to bring Spain to 
treat of peace with her revolted colonies. Russia was addressed 
on this occasion as the friend of Spain; and, of course, every ar- 
gument which it was thought might have influence, or ought to 
have influence, either on Russia or Spain, was suggested in the 
correspondence. Among other things, the probable loss to Spain 
of Cuba and Porto Rico was urged; and the question was 
asked, how it was or could be expected by Spain, that the 
United States should interfere to prevent Mexico and Colombia 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 211 


from taking those islands from her, since she was their enemy, 
in a public war, and since she pertinaciously, and unreasonably, 
as we think, insists on maintaining the war; and since these 
islands offered an obvious object of attack. Was not this, Sir, 
a very proper argument to be urged to Spain? A copy of this 
despatch, it seems, was sent to the Senate in confidence. It has 
not been published by the executive. Now, the alleged incon- 
sistency is, that, notwithstanding this letter, the President has 
interfered to dissuade Mexico and Colombia from attacking 
Cuba; that, finding or thinking that those states meditated such 
a purpose, this government has urged them to desist from it. 
Sir, was ever any thing more unreasonable than this. charge? 
Was it not proper, that, to produce the desired result of peace, 
our government should address different motives to the different 
parties in the war? Was it not its business to set before each 
party its dangers and its difficulties in pursuing the war? And 
if now, by any thing unexpected, these respective cerrespond- 
ences have become public, are these diflerent views, addressed 
thus to different parties and with different objects, to be relied on 
as proof of inconsistency? It is the strangest accusation ever 
heard of. No government not wholly destitute of common 
sense would have acted otherwise. We urged the proper mo- 
tives to both parties. ‘lo Spain we urged the probable loss of 
Cuba; we showed her the dangers of its capture by the new 
states; and we asked her to inform us on what ground it was 
that we could interfere to prevent such capture, since she was at 
war with those states, and they had an unquestionable right to 
attack her in any of her territories; and, especially, she was 
asked how she could expect good offices from us on this occa- 
sion, since she fully understood our opinion to be that she was 
persisting in the war without or beyond all reason, and with a 
sort of desperation. ‘This was the appeal made to the good 
sense of Spain, through Russia. But soon afterwards, having 
reason to suspect that Colombia and Mexico were actually pre- 
paring to attack Cuba, and knowing that such an event would 
most seriously affect us, our government remonstrated against 
such meditated attack, and to the present time it has not been 
made. In all this, who sees any thing either improper or incon- 
sistent? For myself, I think that the course pursued showed a 
watchful regard to our own interest, and is wholly free from any 
imputation either of impropriety or inconsistency. 


212 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


There are other subjects, Sir, in the President’s message, 
which have been discussed in the debate, but on which I shall 
not long detain the committee. 

It cannot be denied, that, from the commencement of our gov- 
ernment, it has been its object to improve and simplify the prin- 
ciples of national intercourse. It may well be thought a fit oc- 
casion to urge these improved principles at a moment when so 
many new states are coming into existence, untrammelled, of 
course, with previous arid long-established connections or habits. 
Some hopes of benefit connected with these topics are suggest- 
ed in the message. 

The abolition of private war on the ocean is also among the 
subjects of possible consideration. ‘This is not the first time 
that that subject has been mentioned. ‘The late President took 
occasion to enforce the considerations which he thought recom- 
mended it. For one, I am not prepared to say how far such 
abolition may be practicable, or how far it ought to be pursued; 
but there are views belonging to the subject which have not 
been, in any degree, answered or considered in this discussion. 
It is not always the party that has the power of employing the 
largest military marine that derives the greatest benefit from 
authorizing privateers in war. It is not enough that there are 
brave and gallant captors; there must be something to be cap- 
tured. Suppose, Sir, a war between ourselves and any one of 
the new states of South America were now existing, who would 
lose most by the practice of privateering in such a war? ‘There 
would be nothing for us to attack, while the means of attacking 
us would flow to our enemies from every part of the world. 
Capital, ships, and men would be abundant in all their ports, 
and our commerce, spread over every sea, would be the destined 
prey. So, again, if war should unhappily spring up among 
those states themselves, might it not be for our interest, as being 
likely to be much connected by intercourse with all parties, that 
our commerce should be free from the visitation and search of 
private armed ships, one of the greatest vexations to neutral 
commerce in time of war? These, Sir, are some of the consid- 
erations belonging to this subject. J have mentioned them only 
to show that they well deserve serious attention. 

I have not intended to reply to the 1aany observations which 
have been submitted to us on the message of the President to 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 213 


this House, or that to the Senate. Certainly I am of opinion, 
that some of those observations merited an answer, and they 
have been answered by others. On two points only will I make 
aremark. It has been said, and often repeated, that the Presi- 
dent, in his message to the Senate, has spoken of his own power 
in regard to missions in terms which the Constitution does not 
warrant. If gentlemen will turn to the message of President 
Washington relative to the mission to Lisbon,” they will see al- 
most the exact form of expression used in this case. The other 
point on which I would make a remark is the allegation that an 
unfair use has been made, in the argument of the message, of 
General Washington’s Farewell Address. There would be no 
end, Sir, to comments and criticisms of this sort if they were to 
be pursued. I only observe, that, as it appears to me, the argu- 
ment of the message, and its use of the Farewell Address, are 
not fairly understood. It is not attempted to be inferred from 
the Farewéll Address, that, according to the opinion of Wash- 
ington, we ought now to have alliances with foreign states. No 
such thing. The Farewell Address recommends to us to ab- 
stain as much as possible from all sorts of political connection 
with the states of Europe, alleging as the reason for this advice, 
that Europe has a set of primary interests of her ownyseparate 
from ours, and with which we have no natural connection. Now 
the message argues, and argues truly, that, the new South Amer- 
ican states not having a set of interests of their own, growing 
out of the balance of power, family alliances, and other similar 
causes, separate from ours, in the same manner and to the same 
degree as the primary interests of Europe were represented to 
be, this part of the Farewell Address, aimed at those separate 
interests expressly, did not apply in this case. But does the 
message infer from this the propriety of alliances with these new 
states? Far from it. It infers no such thing. On the contrary, 
it disclaims all such purpose. 

There is one other point, Sir, on which common justice re- 
quires a word to be said. It has been alleged that there are 
material differences as to the papers sent respectively to the two 
houses. All this, as it seems to me, may be easily and satisfac- 
torily explained. In the first place, the instructions of May 


* Sparks’s Washington, Vol. XII. p. 92. 


214 THE PANAMA MISSION. 


1825, which, it is said, were not sent to the Senate, were in- 
structions on which a treaty had been already negotiated; 
which treaty had been subsequently ratified by the Senate. It 
may be presumed, that, when the treaty was sent to the Senate, 
the instructions accompanied it; and if so, they were actually 
already before the Senate; and this accounts for one of the al- 
leged differences. In the next place, the letter to Mr. Middleton, 
in Russia, not sent to the House, but now published by the 
Senate, is such a paper as possibly the President might not think 
proper to make public. ‘There is evident reason for such an 
inference. And, lastly, the correspondence of Mr. Brown, sent 
here, but not to the Senate, appears from its date to have been 
received after the communication to the Senate. Probably when 
sent to us, it was also sent, by another message, to that body. 

These observations, Sir, are tedious and uninteresting. Iam 
glad to be through with them. And here I might terminate my 
remarks, and relieve the patience, now long and heavily taxed, 
of the committee. But there is one part of the discussion, on 
which I must ask to be indulged with a few observations. 

Pains, Sir, have been taken by the honorable member from 
Virginia, to prove that the measure now in contemplation, and, 
indeed, the whole policy of the government respecting South 
America, is the unhappy result of the influence of a gentleman 
formerly filling the chair of this House. 'To make out this, he © 
has referred to certain speeches of that gentleman delivered here. 
He charges him with having become himself affected at an early 
day with what he is pleased to call the South American fever; 
and with having infused its baneful influence into the whole 
counsels of the country. 

If, Sir, it be true that that gentleman, prompted by an ardent 
love of civil liberty, felt earlier than others a proper sympathy 
for the struggling colonies of South America; or that, acting on 
the maxim that revolutions do not go backward, he had the 
sagacity to foresee, earlier than others, the successful termina- 
tion of those struggles; if, thus feeling, and thus perceiving, it 
fell to him to lead the willing or unwilling counsels of his coun- 
try, in her manifestations of kindness to the new governments, 
and in her seasonable recognition of their independence, — if it 
be this which the honorable member imputes to him, if it be by 
this course of public conduct that he has identified his name 


THE PANAMA MISSION 255 


with the cause of South American liberty, he ought to be es- 
teemed one of the most fortunate men of the age. If all this be 
as is now represented, he has acquired fame enough. It is 
enough for any man thus to have connected himself with the 
greatest events of the age in which he lives, and to have been 
foremost in measures which reflect high honor on his country, in 
the judgment of mankind. Sir, it is always with great réluc- 
tance that Iam drawn to speak, in my place here, of individe- 
als; but I could not forbear what I have now said, when I hear, 
in the House of Representatives, and in this land of free spirits, 
that it is made matter of imputation and of reproach to haye 
been first to reach forth the hand of welcome and of succor to 
new-born nations, struggling to obtain and to enjoy the bless- 
ings of liberty. 

We are told that the country is deluded and deceived by cab- 
alistic words. Cabalistic words! If we express an emotion of 
pleasure at the results of this great action of the spirit of politi- . 
eal liberty; if we rejoice at the birth of ‘new republican na- 
tions, and express our joy by the common terms of regard and 
sympathy ; if we feel and signify high gratification that, through- 
out this whole continent, men are now likely to be blessed by 
free and popular institutions; and if, in the uttering of these 
sentiments, we happen to speak of sister republics, of the great 
American family of nations, or of the political system and forms 
of government of this hemisphere, then indeed, it seems, we deal 
in senseless jargon, or impose on the judgment and feeling of 
the community by cabalistic words! Sir, what is meant by 
this? Is it intended that the people of the United States ought 
to be totally indifferent to the fortunes of these new neighbors? 
Is no change in the lights in which we are to view them to 
be wrought, by their having thrown off foreign dominion, estab- 
lished independence, and instituted on our very borders repub- 
lican governments essentially after our own example? 

Sir, I do not wish to overrate, I do not overrate, the progress 
of these new states in the great work of establishing a well- 
secured popular liberty. I know that to be a great attainment, 
and I know they are but pupils in the school. But, thank God, 
they are in the school. ‘They are called to meet difficulties such 
as neither we nor our fathers encountered. For these we ought 
to make large allowances. What have we ever known like the 


» 


YI THE PANAMA MISSION. 


colonial vassalage of these states? When did we or our an- 
cestors feel, like them, the weight of a political despotism that 
presses men to the earth, or of that religious intolerance which 
would shut up heaven to all of adifferent creed? Sir, we sprung 
from another stock. We belong to another race. We have 
known nothing, we have felt nothing, of the political despotism 
of Spain, nor of the heat of her fires of intolerance. No rational 
man expects that the South can run the same rapid career as 
the North; or that an insurgent province of Spain is in the 
same condition as the English colonies when they first asserted 
their independence. ‘There is, doubtless, much more to be done 
in the first than in the last case. But on that account the honor 
of the attempt is not less; and if all difficulties shall be in time 
surmounted, it will be greater. ‘he work may be more ardu- 
ous, it is not less noble, because there may be more of igno- 
rance to enlighten, more of bigotry to subdue, more of preju- 
dice to eradicate. If it be a weakness to feel a strong interest in 
the success of these great revolutions, I confess myself guilty of 
that weakness. If it be weak to feel that [am an American, to 
think that recent events have not only opened new modes of in- 
tercourse, but have created also new grounds of regard.and sym- 
pathy between ourselves and our neighbors ; if it be weak to feel 
that the South, in her present state, is somewhat more emphati- 
cally a part of America than when she lay obscure, oppressed, 
and unknown, under the grinding bondage of a foreign power; 
if it be weak to rejoice when, even in any corner of the earth, 
human beings are able to rise from beneath oppression, to erect 
themselves, and to enjoy the proper happiness of their intelligent 
nature ;— if this be weak, it is a weakness from which I claim 
no exemption. : 

A day of solemn retribution now visits the once proud mon- 
archy of Spain. The prediction is fulfilled. The spirit of Mon- 
tezuma and of the Incas might now well say,— 


‘¢ Art thou, too, fallen, Iberia? Do we see 
The robber and the murderer weak as wet 
Thou! that hast wasted earth and dared despise 
Alike the wrath and mercy of the skies, 
Thy pomp is in the grave; thy glory laid 
Low in the pits thine avarice has made.’’* 


Cowper’s Charity. 


THE PANAMA MISSION. 217 


Mr. Chairman, I will only detain you with one more reflec- 
tion on this subject. We cannot be so blind, we cannot so shut 
up our senses and smother our faculties, as not to see, that, in 
the progress and the establishment of South American liberty, 
our own example has been among the most stimulating causes. 
In their emergencies, they have looked to our experience; in 
their political institutions, they have followed our models; in 
their deliberations, they have invoked the presiding spirit of our 
own liberty. ‘They have looked steadily, in every adversity, to 
the great Northern light. In the hour of bloody conflict, they 
have remembered the fields which have been consecrated by the 
blood of our own fathers; and when they have fallen, they have 
wished only to be remembered with them, as men who had 
acted their parts bravely for the cause of liberty in the Western 
World. 

Sir, [have done. If it be weakness to feel the sympathy of 
one’s nature excited for such men, in such a cause, I am guilty 
of that weakness. If it be prudence to meet their proffered 
civility, not with reciprocal kindness, but with coldness or with 
insult, I choose still to follow where natural impulse leads, and 
to give up that false and mistaken prudence for the voluntary 
sentiments of my heart. 


VOL. III. 19 


REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS.* 


Mr. PresipenT, —It has not been my purpose to take any 
part in the discussion of this bill. My opinions in regard to its 
general object, I hope, are well known; and I had intended to 
content myself with a steady and persevering vote in its favor. 
But when the moment of final decision has come, and the divis- 
ion is so likely to be nearly equal, I feel it to be a duty to put, 
not only my own vote, but my own earnest wishes also, and 
my fervent entreaties to others, into the doubtful scale. 

It must be admitted, Sir, that the persons for whose benefit 
this bill is designed are, in some respects, peculiarly unfortunate. 
They are compelled to meet not only objections to the principle, 
but, whichever way they turn themselves, embarrassing objec- 
tions also to details. One friend hesitates at this provision, and 
another at that; while those who are not friends at all of course 
oppose every thing, and propose nothing. When it was con- 
templated, heretofore, to give the petitioners a sum outright in 
satisfaction of their claim, then the argument was, among other 
things, that the treasury could not bear so heavy a draught on 
its means at the present moment. ‘The plan is accordingly 
changed; an annuity is proposed; and then the objection changes 
also. It is now said, that this is but granting pensions, and that 
the pension system has already been carried too far. I confess, 
Sir, I felt wounded, deeply hurt, at the observations of the. gen- 
tleman from Georgia. “So, then,” said he, “these modest and 
high-minded gentlemen take a pension at last!” How is it pos- 
sible that a gentleman of his generosity of character, and gen- 


* A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 25th of 
April, 1828, on the Bill for the Relief of the Surviving Officers of the Revo- 
lution. 


REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 219 


eral kindness of feeling, can indulge in such a tone of trium- 
phant irony towards a few old, gray-headed, poor, and broken 
warriors of the Revolution! ‘There is, I know, something repul- 
sive and opprobrious in the name of pension. But God forbid 
that I should taunt them with it! With grief, heart-felt grief, 
do I behold the necessity which leads these veterans to accept the 
bounty of their country, in a manner not the most agreeable to 
their feelings. Worn out and decrepit, represented before us by 
those, their former brothers in arms, who totter along our lob- 
bies, or stand leaning on their crutches, I, for one, would most 
gladly support such a measure as should consult at once their 
services, their years, their necessities, and the delicacy of their 
sentiments. JI would gladly give, with promptitude and grace, 
with gratitude and delicacy, that which merit has earned and 
necessity demands. ' 

Sir, what are the objections urged against this bill? Let us 
look at them, and see if they be real; let us weigh them, to 
know if they be solid; for we are not acting on a slight matter, 
nor is what we do likely to pass unobserved now, or to be for- 
gotten hereafter. I regard the occasion as one full of interest 
and full of responsibility. ‘Those individuals, the little remnant 
of a gallant band, whose days of youth and manhood were 
spent for their country in the toils and dangers of the field, are 
now before us, poor and old,—intimating their wants with re- 
luctant delicacy, and asking succor from their country with dec- 
orous solicitude. How we shall treat them it behooves us well 
to consider, not only for their sake, but for our own sake also, 
and for the sake of the honor of the country. Whatever we do 
will not be done in a corner. Our constituents will see it; the 
people will see it; the world will see it. | 

Let us candidly examine, then, the objections which have 
been raised to this bill, with a disposition to yield to them, if 
from necessity we must, but to overcome them, if in fairness 
we can. 

In the first place, it is said that we ought not to pass the bill, 
because it will involve us in a charge of unknown extent. We 
are reminded, that, when the general pension law for Revolution- 
ary soldiers passed, an expense was incurred far beyond what 
had been contemplated; that the estimate of the number of 
surviving Revolutionary soldiers proved altogether fallacious; 


220 REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 


and that, for aught we know, the same mistake may be commit- 
ted now. 

Is this objection well founded? Let me say, in the first place, 
that if one measure, right in itself, has gone farther than it was 
intended to be carried, for want of accurate provisions and ade- 
quate guards, this may furnish a very good reason for supplying 
such guards and provisions in another measure, but can afford 
no ground at all for rejecting such other measure altogether, if 
it be in itself just and reasonable. We should avail ourselves 
of our experience, it seems to me, to correct what has been found 
amiss; and not draw from it an undistinguishing resolution to do 
nothing, merely because it has taught us, that, in something we 
have already done, we have acted with too little care. In the 
next place, does the fact bear out this objection? Is there any 
difficulty in ascertaining the number of the officers who will be 
benefited by this bill, and in estimating the expense, therefore, 
which it will create? I think there is none. The records in 
the department of war and the treasury furnish such evidence 
that there is no danger of material mistake. The diligence of 
the chairman of the committee has enabled him to lay the facts 
connected with this part of the case so fully and minutely before 
the Senate, that I think no one can feel serious doubt. Indeed, 
it is admitted by the adversaries of the bill, that this objection 
does not apply here with the same force as in the former pen- 
sion-law. It is admitted that there is a greater facility in this 
case than in that, in ascertaining the number and names of those 
who will be entitled to receive that bounty. 

This objection, then, is not founded in true principle; and if it 
were, it is not sustained by the facts. Ithink we ought not to 
yield to it, unless, (which I know is not the sentiment which per- 
vades the Senate,) feeling that the measure ought not to pass, 
we still prefer not to place our opposition to it on a distinet 
and visible ground, but to veil it under vague and general objec- 
tions. 

In the second place, it has been objected that the operation 
of the bill will be unequal, because all officers of the same rank 
will receive equal benefit from it, although they entered the army 
at different times, and were of different ages. Sir, is not this 
that sort of inequality which must always exist in every general 
provision. Is it possible that any law can descend into such par- 


REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 221 


ticulars? Would there be any reason why it should do so, if 
it could? The bill is intended for those who, being in the army 
in October, 1780, then received a solemn promise of half-pay 
for life, on condition that they would continue to serve through 
the war. Their ground of merit is, that, whensoever they joined 
the army, being thus solicited by their country to remain in it, 
they at once went for the whole; they fastened their fortunes 
to the standards which they bore, and resolved to continue their 
“nilitary service till it should terminate either in their country’s 
success or in their own death. This is their merit and their 
eround of claim. How long they had been already in service, 
is immaterial and unimportant. ‘They were then in service; the 
salvation of their country depended on their continuing in that 
service. Congress saw this imperative necessity, and earnestly 
solicited them to remain, and promised the compensation. They 
saw the necessity also, and they yielded to it. 

But, again, it is said that the present time is not auspicious. 
The bill, it is urged, should not pass now. ‘he venerable mem- 
per from North Carolina says, as I understood him, that he 
would be almost as willing that the bill should pass at some 
other session, as be discussed at this. He speaks of the dis- 
tresses of the country at the present moment, and of another 
bill, now in the Senate, having, as he thinks, the eflect of laying 
new taxes upon the people. He is for postponement. But it 
appears to me, with entire respect for the honorable member, 
that this is one of the cases least of all fit for postponement. 
It is not a measure that, if omitted this year, may as well be 
done next. Before the next year comes, some of those who 
need the relief may be beyond its reach. ‘To postpone for an- 
other year an annuity to persons already so aged, — an annuity 
founded on the merit of services which were rendered half a 
century ago, — to postpone to another whole year a bill for the 
relief of deserving men,— proposing, not aggrandizement, but 
support, not emolument, but bread, —is a mode of disposing of 
it in which I cannot concur. 

But it is argued, in the next place, that the bill ought not to 
pass, because those who have spoken in its favor have placed it 
on different grounds. They have not agreed, it is said, whether 
it is to be regarded as a matter of right, or matter of gratuity, 
or bounty. Is there weight in this objection? If some think 


19* 


Ay i REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 


the grant ought to be made, as an exercise of judicious and 
well-deserved bounty, does it weaken that ground that others 
think it founded in strict right, and that we cannot refuse it 
without manifest and palpable injustice? Or is it strange that 
those who feel the legal justice of the claim should address to 
those who do not feel it considerations of a different character, 
but fit to have weight, and which they hope may have weight? 
Nothing is more plain and natural than the course which this 
application has taken. The applicants themselves have placed 
it on the ground of equity and law. They advert to the resolve 
of 1780, to the commutation of 1783, and to the mode of fund- 
ing the certificates. They stand on their contract. ‘This is 
perfectly natural. On that basis they can present the argument 
themselves. Of what is required by justice and equity, they 
may reason, even in their own case. But when the application 
is placed on different grounds; when personal merit is to be 
urged as the foundation of a just and economical bounty ; when 
services are to be mentioned, privations recounted, pains 
enumerated, and wounds and scars referred to, the discussion 
necessarily devolves upon others. In all that we have seen 
from these officers in the various papers presented by them, it 
cannot but be obvious to every one how little is said of per- 
sonal merit, and how exclusively they confine themselves to 
what they think their rights under the contract. 

I must confess, Sir, that principles of equity, which appear to 
me as plain as the sun, are urged by the memorialists them- 
selves with great caution, and much qualification. ‘They ad- 
vance their claim of right without extravagance or overstrain- 
ing; and they submit to it the unimpassioned sense of justice 
of the Senate. 

For myself, I am free to say, that, if it were a case between 
individual and individual, I think the officers would be entitled 
to relief in a court of equity. I may be mistaken, but such is 
my opinion. My reasons are, that I do not think they had a 
fair option in regard to the commutation of half-pay. I do not 
think it was fairly in their power to accept or reject that offer. 
The condition they were in, and the situation of the country, 
compelled them to submit to whatever was proposed. In the 
next place, it seems to me too evident to be denied, that the 
five years’ full pay was never effectually received by them. A 


REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 223 


formal compliance with the terms of the contract, not a real 
compliance, is at most all that ever took place. Jor these rea- 
sons, I think, in an individual case, law and equity would 
reform the settlement. ‘The conscience of chancery would deal 
with this case as with other cases of hard bargains; of advan- 
tages obtained by means of inequality of situation; of acknowl- 
edged debts, compounded from necessity, or compromised with- 
out satisfaction. But although such would be my views of this 
claim, as between man and man, I do not place my vote for this 
bill on that ground. I see the consequence of admitting the 
claim, on the foundation of strict right. I see at once, that, on 
that ground, the heirs of the dead would claim, as well as the 
living; and that other public creditors, as well as these holders 
of commutation certificates, would also have whereof to com- 
plain. I know it is altogether impossible to open the accounts 
of the Revolution, and to think of doing justice to every body. 
Much of suffering there necessarily was, that can never be paid 
for; much of loss that can never be repaired. I do not, therefore, 
for myself, rest my vote on grounds leading to any such conse- 
quences. I feel constrained to say, that we cannot do, and 
ought not to think of doing, every thing in regard to Revolu- 
tionary debts which might be desirable, if the whole settlement 
were now to be gone over anew. 

The honorable member from New York* has stated what I 
think the true ground of the bill. I regard it as an act of dis- 
creet and careful bounty, drawn forth by meritorious services 
and by personal necessities. I cannot argue, in this case, with 
the technicality of my profession; and because I do not feel 
able to allow the claim on the ground of mere right, I am not 
willing, for that reason, to nonsuit the petitioners, as not having 
made out their case. Suppose we admit, as I do, that, on the 
ground of mere right, it would not be safe to allow it; or, sup- 
pose that to be admitted for which others contend, that there is 
in the case no strict right upon which under any circumstances, 
the claim could stand; still it does not follow that there is no 
reasonable and proper foundation for it, or that it ought not to 
be granted. If it be not founded on strict right, it is not to be 
regarded as being, for that reason alone, an undeserved gratuity, 


* Mr. Van Buren 


224 ‘REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 


or the effusion of mere good-will. If that which is granted be 
not always granted on the ground of absolute right, it does not 
follow that it is granted merely from an arbitrary preference, or 
capricious beneficence. In most cases of this sort, mixed con- 
siderations prevail, and ought to prevail: Some consideration is 
due to the claim of right; much to that of merit and service; 
and more to that of personal necessity. If I knew that all the per- 
sons to be benefited by this bill were in circumstances of comfort 
and competency, I should not support it. But this I know to be 
otherwise. I cannot dwell with propriety or delicacy on this part 
of the case; but I feel its force, and I yield to it. A single instance 
of affluence, or a few cases where want does not tread close on 
those who are themselves treading close on the borders of the 
grave, does not affect the general propriety and necessity of the 
measure. I would not draw this reason for the bill into too 
much prominence. We all know it exists; and we may, I 
think, safely act upon it, without so discussing it as to wound, 
in old, but sensitive and still throbbing bosoms, feelings which 
education inspired, the habits of military life cherished, and a 
just self-respect is still desirous to entertain. I confess I meet 
this claim, not only with a desire to do something in favor of 
these officers, but to do it in a manner indicative, not only of 
decorum, but of deep respect, — that respect which years, age, 
public service, patriotism, and broken fortune, command to spring 
up in every manly breast. 

It is, then, Sir, a mixed claim of faith and public gratitude, 
of justice and honorable bounty, of merit and benevolence. It 
stands on the same foundation as that grant, which no one re- 
egrets, of which all are proud, made to the illustrious foreigner, 
who showed himself so early, and has proved himself so con- 
stantly and zealously, a friend to our country. 

Then, again, it is objected, that the militia have a claim upon 
us; that they fought at the side of the regular soldiers, and 
ought to share in the country’s remembrance. But it is known 
to be impossible to carry the measure to such an extent as to 
embrace the militia; and it is plain, too, that the cases are dif- 
ferent. The bill, as I have already said, confines itself to those 
who served not occasionally, not temporarily, but permanently ; 
who allowed themselves to be counted on as men who were to 
see the contest through, last as long as it might; and who have 


REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 225 


made the phrase “’listing during the war” a proverbial ex- 
pression, signifying unalterable devotion to our cause, through 
good fortune and ill fortune, till it reaches its close. ‘This is a 
plain distinction; and although, perhaps, I might wish to do 
more, I see good ground to stop here for the present, if we must 
stop anywhere. ‘The militia who fought at Concord, at Lexing- 
ton, and at Bunker’s Hill, have been alluded to, in the course of 
this debate, in terms of well-deserved praise. Be assured, Sir, 
there could with difficulty be found a man who drew his sword, 
or carried his musket, at Concord, at Lexington, or Bunker’s 
Hill, who would wish you to reject this bill. They might ask 
you to do more, but never to refrain from doing this. Would 
to God they were assembled here, and had the fate of the bill in 
their own hands! Would to God the question of its passage 
were to be put to them! They would affirm it, with a unity of 
acclamation that would rend the roof of the Capitol. 

I support the measure, then, Mr. President, because I think it 
a proper and judicious exercise of well-merited national bounty. 
I think, too, the general sentiment of my own constituents, and 
of the country, is in favor of it. I believe the member from 
North Carolina himself admitted, that an increasing desire that 
something should be done for the Revolutionary officers mani- 
fested itself in the community. The bill will make no imme- 
diate or great draught on the treasury. It will not derange the 
‘finances. If J had supposed that the state of the treasury would 
have been urged against the passage of this bill, I should not 
have voted for the Delaware breakwater, because that might 
have been commenced next year; nor for the whole of the sums 
which have been granted for fortifications; for their advance- 
ment with a little more or a little less of rapidity is not of the 
first necessity. But the present case is urgent. What we do 
should be done quickly. 

Mr. President, allow me to repeat, that neither the subject nor 
the occasion is an ordinary one. Our own fellow-citizens do 
not so consider it; the world will not so regard it. A few de- 
serving soldiers are before us, who served their country faithfully 
through a seven years’ war. ‘That war was a civil war. It was 
commenced on principle, and sustained by every sacrifice, on 
the great ground of civil liberty. ‘They fought bravely, and bled 
freely. ‘Ihe cause succeeded, and the country triumphed. But 


226 REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 


the condition of things did not allow that country, sensible as 
it was to their services and merits, to do them the full justice 
which it desired. It could not entirely fulfil its engagements. 
The army was to be disbanded; but it was unpaid. It was to 
lay down its own power; but there was no government with 
adequate power to perform what had been promised to it. In 
this critical moment, what is its conduct? Does it disgrace its 
high character? Is temptation able to seduce it? Does it 
speak of righting itself? Does it undertake to redress its own 
wrongs by its own sword? Does it lose its patriotism in its 
deep sense of injury and injustice? Does military ambition 
cause its integrity to swerve? Far, far otherwise. 

It had faithfully served and saved the country; and to that 
country it now referred, with unhesitating confidence, its claim 
and its complaints. It laid down its arms with alacrity ; it min- 
gled itself with the mass of the community; and it waited till, 
in better times, and under a new government, its services might 
be rewarded, and the promises made to it fulfilled. Sir, this ex-. 
ample is worth more, far more, to the cause of civil liberty, than 
this bill will cost us. We can hardly recur to it too often, or 
dwell on it too much, for the honor of our country and of its 
defenders. Allow me to say, again, that meritorious service in 
civil war is worthy of peculiar consideration; not only because 
there is, in such wars, usually less power to restrain irregularities, 
but because, also, they expose all prominent actors in them to 
different kinds of danger. It is rebellion as well as war. ‘Those 
who engage in it must look, not only to the dangers of the field, 
but to confiscation also, and attainder, and ignominious death. 
With no efficient and settled government, either to sustain or 
to control them, and with every sort of danger before them, it is 
great merit to have conducted themselves with fidelity to the 
country, under every discouragement on the one hand, and with 
unconquerable bravery towards the common enemy on the other. 
Such, Sir, was the conduct of the officers and soldiers of the Rev- 
olutionary army. 

I would not, and do not, underrate the services or the suffer- 
ings of others. I know well, that in the Revolutionary contest 
all made sacrifices, and all endured sufferings; as well those who 
paid for service, as those who performed it. I know that, in the 
records of all the little municipalities of New England, abundant 


REVOLUTIONARY OFFICERS. 227 


proof exists of the zeal with which the cause was espoused, and 
the sacrifices with which it was cheerfully maintained. I have 
often there read, with absolute astonishment, of the taxes, the 
contributions, the heavy subscriptions, sometimes provided for 
by disposing of the absolute necessaries of life, by which enlist- 
ments were procured, and food and clothing furnished. It would 
be, Sir, to these same municipalities, to these same little patri- 
otic councils of Revolutionary times, that I should now look, with 
most assured confidence, for a hearty support of what this bill 
proposes. ‘There, the scale of Revolutionary merit stands high. 
There are still those living who speak of the 19th of April, and 
the 17th of June, without thinking it necessary to add the year. 
These men, one and all, would rejoice to find that those who 
stood by the country bravely, through the doubtful and perilous 
struggle which conducted it to independence and glory, had not 
been forgotten in the decline and close of life. 

The objects, then, Sir, of the proposed bounty, are most wor- 
thy and deserving objects. The services which they rendered 
were in the highest degree useful and important. The country 
to which they rendered them is great and prosperous. They 
have lived to see it glorious; let them not live to see it unkind. 
For me, I.can give them but my vote and my prayers; and I 
give them both with my whole heart. 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFE.* 


Mr. Presipent, — This subject is surrounded with embarrass- 
ments on all sides. Of itself, however wisely or temperately 
treated, it is full of difficulties; and these difficulties have not 
been diminished by the particular frame of this bill, nor by the 
manner hitherto pursued of proceeding with it. <A diversity of 
interests exists, or is supposed to exist, in different parts of the 
country; this is one source of difficulty. Different opinions 
are entertained as to the constitutional power of Congress; this 
is another. And then, again, different members of the Senate 
have instructions which they feel bound to obey, and which 
clash with one another. We have this morning seen an honor- 
able member from New York, an important motion being under 
consideration, lay his instructions on the table, and point to 
them as his power of attorney, and as containing the directions 
for his vote. 

Those who intend to oppose this bill, under all circumstances, 
and in any or all forms, care not how objectionable it now is, or 
how bad it may be made. Others, finding their own leading 
objects satisfactorily secured by it, naturally enough press for- 
ward, without staying to consider deliberately how injuriously 
other interests may be affected. All these causes create embar- 
rassments, and inspire just fears that a wise and useful result is 
hardly to be expected. ‘There seems a strange disposition to 
run the hazard of extremes; and to forget that, in cases of this 
kind, measure, proportion, and degree are objects of inquiry, and 
the true rules of judgment. I have not had the slightest wish 


* Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 9th of May, 
1828, on the Tariff Bill. 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 229 


to discuss the measure; not believing that, in the present state 
of things, any good could be done by me in that way. But the 
frequent declaration that this was altogether a New England 
measure, a bill for securing a monopoly to the capitalists of the 
North, and other expressions of a similar nature, have induced 
me to address the Senate on the subject. 

New England, Sir, has not been a leader in this policy. On 
the contrary, she held back herself and tried to hold others back 
from it, from the adoption of the Constitution to 1824. “Up to 
1824, she was accused of sinister and selfish designs, because 
she discountenanced the progress of this policy. It was laid to 
her charge then, that, having established her manufactures her- 
self, she wished that others should not have the power of rival- 
ling her, and for that reason opposed all legislative encourage- 
ment. Under this angry denunciation against her, the act of 
1824 passed. Now, the imputation is precisely of an opposite 
character. ‘The present measure is pronounced to be exclusively 
for the benefit of New England; to be brought forward by her 
agency, and designed to gratify the cupidity of the proprietors 
of her wealthy establishments. 

Both charges, Sir, are equally without the slightest foundation. 
The opinion of New England up to 1824 was founded in the 
conviction that, on the whole, it was wisest and best, both for 
herself and others, that manufactures should make haste slowly. 
She felt a reluctance to trust great interests on the foundation 
of government patronage; for who could tell how long such 
patronage would last, or with what steadiness, skill, or perse- 
verance it would continue to be granted? It is now nearly 
fifteen years since, among the first things which I ever ventured 
to say here, I expressed a serious doubt whether this govern- 
ment was fitted, by its construction, to administer aid and pro- 
tection to particular pursuits; whether, having called such pur- 
suits into being by indications of its favor, it would not after- 
wards desert them, should troubles come upon them, and leave 
them to their fate. Whether this prediction, the result, certain- 
ly, of chance, and not of sagacity, is about to be fulfilled, remains 
to be seen. 

At the same time it is true, that, from the very first commence- 
ment of the government, those who have administered its con- 
cerns have held a tone of encouragement and invitation towards 

VOL, III. 20 





239 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 


those who should embark in manufactures. All the Presidents, 
I believe without exception, have concurred in this general sen- 
timent; and the very first act of Congress laying duties on 
imports adopted the then unusual expedient of a preamble, ap- 
parently for little other purpose than that of declaring that the 
duties which it imposed were laid for the encouragement and 
protection of manufactures. When, at the commencement of 
the late war, duties were doubled, we were told that we should 
find a mitigaticn of the weight of taxation in the new aid and 
succor which would be thus afforded to our own manufacturing 
labor. Like arguments were urged, and prevailed, but not by 
the aid of New England votes, when the tariff was afterwards 
arranged, at the close of the war in 1816. Finally, after a whole 
winter’s deliberation, the act of 1824 received the sanction of 
both houses of Congress, and settled the policy of the couniry. 
What, then, was New England to do? She was fitted for man- 
ufacturing operations, by the amount and character of her popu- 
lation, by her capital, by the vigor and energy of her free labor, 
by the skill, economy, enterprise, and perseverance of her peo- 
ple. Irepeat, What was she under these circumstances to do? 
A. great and prosperous rival in her near neighborhood, threaten- 
ing to draw from her a part, perhaps a great part, of her foreign 
commerce; was she to use, or to neglect, those other means of 
seeking her own prosperity which belonged to her character and 
her condition? Was she to hold out for ever against the course 
of the government, and see herself losing on one side, and yet 
make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, Sir. Noth- 
ing was left to New England, after the act of 1824, but to con- 
form herself to the will of others. Nothing was left to her, but 
to consider that the government had fixed and determined its 
own policy; and that policy was protection. 

New England, poor in some respects, in others is as wealthy 
as her neighbors. Her soil would be held in low estimation by 
those who are acquainted with the valley of the Mississippi and 
the fertile plains of the South. But in industry, in habits of la- 
bor, skill, and in accumulated capital, the fruit of two centuries 
of industry, she may be said to be rich. After this final declara- 
tion, this solemn promulgation of the policy of the government, I 
again ask, What was she to do? Was she to deny herself the 
use of her advantages, natural and acquired? Was she to con- 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 231 


tent herself with useless regrets? Was she longer to resist what 
she could no longer prevent? Or was she, rather, to adapt her 
acts to her condition; and, seeing the policy of the government 
thus settled and fixed, to accommodate to it as well as she could 
her own pursuits and her own industry? Every man will see 
that she had no option. Every man will confess that there re- 
mained for her but one course. She not only saw this herself, 
but had all along foreseen, that, if the system of protecting man- 
ufactures should be adopted, she must go largely into them. J 
believe, Sir, almost every man from New England who voted 
against the law of 1824 declared that, if, notwithstanding his 
opposition to that law, it should still pass, there would be no al- 
ternative but to consider the course and policy of the govern- 
ment as then settled and fixed; and to act accordingly. The law 
did pass; and a vast increase of investment in manufacturing 
establishments was the consequence. ‘Those who made such 
investments probably entertained not the slighest doubt that as 
much as was promised would be effectually granted; and that 
if, owing to any unforeseen occurrence or untoward event, the 
benefit designed by the law to any branch of manufactures 
should not be realized, it would furnish a fair case for the con- 
sideration of government. Certainly they could not expect, 
after what had passed, that interests of great magnitude would 
be left at the mercy of the very first change of circumstances 
which might occur. 

As a general remark, it may be said, that the interests con- 
cerned in the act of 1824 did not complain of their condition 
under it, excepting only those connected with the woollen man- 
ufactures. ‘These did complain, not so much of the act itself 
as of a new state of circumstances, unforeseen when the law 
passed, but which had now arisen to thwart its beneficial opera- 
tions as to them, although in one respect, perhaps, the law itself 
was thought to be unwisely framed. 

‘Three causes have been generally stated as having produced 
the disappointment experienced by the manufacturers of wool 
under the law of 1824. 

First, it is alleged that the price of the raw material has been 
raised too high by the act itself. This point had been dis- 
cussed at the time, and although opinions varied, the result, so 
far as it depended on this part of the case, though it may be 


232 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 


said to have been unexpected, was certainly not entirely un- 
foreseen.” 

But, secondly, the manufacturers imputed their disappoint- 
ment to a reduction of the price of wool in England, which took 
place just about the date of the law of 1824. This reduction 
was produced by lowering the duty on imported wool from six- 
pence sterling to one penny sterling per pound. The effect of 
this is obvious enough; but in order to see the real extent of the 
reduction, it may be convenient to state the matter more partic- 
ularly. 

The meaning of our law was doubtless to give the American 
manufacturer an advantage over his English competitors. Pro- 
tection must mean this, or it means nothing. ‘The English 
manufacturer having certain advantages on his side, such as 
the lower price of labor and the lower interest of money, the 
object of our law was to counteract these advantages by creat- 
ing others, in behalf of the American manufacturer. Therefore, 
to see what was necessary to be done in order that the Ameri- 
can manufacturer might sustain the competition, a comparison 
of the respective advantages and disadvantages was to be made. 
In this view the very first element to be considered was, what is 
the cost of the raw material to each party. On this the whole 
must materially depend. Now when the law of 1824 passed, 
the English manufacturer paid a duty of sixpence sterling per 
pound on imported wool. But in a very few days afterwards, 
this duty was reduced by Parliament from sixpence to a penny. 
A reduction of five pence per pound in the price of wool was 
estimated in Parliament to be equal to a reduction of twenty- 
six per cent. ad valorem on all imported wool; and this redue- 
tion, it is obvious, had its effect on the price of home-produced 
wool also. Almost, then, at the very moment that the framers 
of the act of 1824 were raising the price of the raw material 
here, as that act did raise it, it was lowered in England by the 
very great reduction of twenty-six per cent. Of course, this 
changed the whole basis of the calculation. It wrought a com- 
plete change in the relative advantages and disadvantages of 
the English and American competitors, and threw the prepon- 
derance of advantage most decidedly on the side of the English. 


* See above, p. 135. 


SECOND SPEECH! ON THE TARIFF. 233 


If the American manufacturer had not vastly too great a prefer- 
ence before this reduction took place, it is clear he had too little 
afterwards, 

In a paper which has been presented to the Senate, and often 
referred to, —a paper distinguished for the ability and clearness 
with which it enforces general principles, —the Boston Report, 
it is clearly proved (what, indeed, is sufficiently obvious from 
the mere comparison of dates) that the British government did 
not reduce its duty on wool because of our act of 1824. Cer- 
tainly this is true; but the effect of that reduction on our manu- 
factures was the same precisely as if the British act had been 
designed to operate against them, and for no other purpose. I 
think it cannot be doubted that our law of 1824, and the re- 
duction of the wool duty in England, taken together, left our 
manufactures in a worse condition than they were before. If 
there was any reasonable ground, therefore, for passing the 
law of 1824, there is now the same ground for some other meas- 
ure; and this ground, too, is strengthened by the consideration 
of the hopes excited, the enterprises undertaken, and the capital 
invested, in consequence of that law. 

In the last place, it was alleged by the manufacturers that 
they suflered from the mode of collecting the duties on woollen 
fabrics at the custom-houses. ‘These duties are ad valorem du- 
ties. Such duties, from the commencement of the government, 
have been estimated by reference to the invoice, as fixing the 
value at the place whence imported. When not suspected to 
be false or fraudulent, the invoice is the regular proof of value. 
Originally this was a tolerably safe mode of proceeding. While 
the importation was mainly in the hands of American mer- 
chants, the invoice would of course, if not false or fraudulent, 
express the terms and the price of an actual purchase and sale. 
But an invoice is not necessarily an instrument expressing the 
sale of goods, and their prices. If there be but a list or cata- 
logue, with prices stated by way of estimate, it is still an in- 
voice, and within the law. Now the suggestion is, that the 
English manufacturer, in making out an invoice, in which prices 
are thus stated by himself in the way of estimate merely, is able 
to obtain an important advantage over the American merchant 
who purchases in the same market, and whose invoice states, 
consequently, the actual prices, on the sale. In proof of this 


20 * 


204 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 


suggestion, it is alleged that, in the largest importing city in the 
Union, a very great proportion, some say nearly all, of the wool- 
len fabrics are imported on foreign account. ‘The various papers 
which have come before us, praying for a tax on auction sales, 
aver that the invoice of the foreign importer is generally much 
lower than that of the American importer; and that, in conse- 
quence of this and of the practice of sales at auction, the Ameri- 
can merchant must be driven out of the trade. J cannot answer 
for the entire accuracy of these statements, but I have no doubt 
there is something of truth in them. The main facts have been 
often stated, and I have neither seen nor heard a denial of them. 

Is it true, then, that nearly the whole importation of woollens 
is, in the largest importing city, in the hands of foreigners? Is 
it true, as stated, that the invoices of such foreign importers are 
generally found to be lower than those of the American import- 
er? If these things be so, it will be admitted that there is rea- 
son to believe that undervaluations do take place, and that some 
corrective for the evil should be administered. J am glad to 
see that the American merchants themselves begin to bestow 
attention upon a subject, as interesting to them as it is to the 
manufacturers. 

Under this state of things, Sir, the law of the last session was 
proposed. It was confined, as I thought properly, to wool and 
woollens. It took up the great and leading subject of com- 
plaint, and nothing else. It was urged, indeed, against that bill, 
that, although much had been said of frauds at the custom-house, 
no provision was made in it for the prevention of such frauds. 
That is a mistake. The general frame of the bill was such, 
that, if skilfully drawn and adapted to its purpose, its tendency 
to prevent such frauds would be manifest. By the fixing of 
prices at successive points of graduation, or minimums, as they 
are called, the power of evading duties by undervaluations would 
be most materially restrained. If these points, indeed, were suf- 
ficiently distant, it is obvious the duty would assume something 
of the certainty and precision of a specific duty. But this bill 
failed, and Congress adjourned in March, last year, leaving the 
subject where it had found it. 

The complaints which had given rise to the bill continued; 
and in the course of the summer a meeting of the wool-growers 
and wool-manufacturers was held in Pennsylvania, at which 


SECOND SPEECH OF THE TARIEF. 935 


a petition to Congress was agreed upon. I do not feel it neces- 
sary, on behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts, to disclaim a 
participation in that meeting. Persons of much worth and re- 
spectability attended it from Massachusetts, and its proceed- 
ings and results manifested, I think, a degree of temper and 
moderation highly creditable to those who composed it. 

But while the bill of last year was confined to that which 
alone had been a subject of complaint, the bill now before us is 
of a very different description. It proposes to raise duties on 
various other articles besides wool and woollens. It contains 
some provisions which bear with unnecessary severity on the 
whole community; others which affect, with peculiar hardship, 
particular interests; while both of them benefit nobody and noth- 
ing but the treasury. It contains provisions which, with what- 
ever motive put into it, it is confessed are now kept in for the 
very purpose of destroying the bill altogether; or with the in- 
tent to compel those who expect to derive benefit, to feel smart 
from it also. Probably such a motive of action has not often 
been avowed. 

The wool manufacturers think they have made out a case for 
the interposition of Congress. ‘They happen to live principally 
at the North and East; and in a bill professing to be for their 
relief, other provisions are found, which are supposed (and sup- 
ported because they are supposed) to be such as will press with 
peculiar hardship on that quarter of the country. Sir, what can 
be expected, but evil, when a temper like this prevails? How 
ean such a hostile, retaliatory legislation be reconciled to com- 
mon justice, or common prudence? Nay, Sir, this rule of action 
seems carried still farther. Not only are clauses found, and con- 
tinued in the bill, which oppress particular interests, but taxes 
are laid also, which will be severely felt by the whole Union; 
and this, too, with the same design, and for the same end before 
mentioned, of causing the smart of the bill to be felt. Of this 
description is the molasses tax; a tax, in my opinion, absurd 
and preposterous, in relation to any object of protection, need- 
lessly oppressive to the whole community, and beneficial no- 
where on earth but at the treasury. And yet here it is, and here 
it is kept, under an idea, conceived in ignorance and cherished 
for a short-lived triumph, that New England will be deterred by 
this tax from protecting her extensive woollen manufactures; or, 


236 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 


if not, that the authors of this policy may at least have the 
pleasure, the high pleasure, of perceiving that she feels the ill 
effects of this part of the bill. 

Sir, let us look for a moment at this tax. The molasses im- 
ported into the United States amounts to thirteen millions of 
gallons annually. Of this quantity, not more than three mil- 
lions are distilled; the remaining ten millions being consumed, 
as an article of wholesome food. ‘The proposed tax is not to 
be laid for revenue. ‘That is not pretended. It was not intro- 
duced for the benefit of the sugar-planters. They are contented 
with their present condition, and have applied for nothing. 
What, then, was the object? Sir, the original professed object 
was to increase, by this new duty on molasses, the consumption 
of spirits distilled from grain. ‘This, I say, was the object origi- 
nally professed. But in this point of view the measure appears 
to me to be preposterous. It is monstrous, and out of all pro- 
portion and relation of means to ends. It proposes to double 
the duty on the ten millions of gallons of molasses which are 
consumed for food, in order that it may likewise double the duty 
on the three millions which are distilled into spirits; and all 
this for the contingent and doubtful purpose of augmenting the 
consumption of spirits distilled from grain. I say contingent 
and doubtful purpose, because I do not believe any such effect 
will be produced. I do not think a hundred gallons more of 
spirits distilled from grain will find a market in consequence of 
this tax on molasses. ‘lhe debate, here and elsewhere, has 
shown that, I think, clearly. But suppose some slight eflect of 
that kind should be produced, is it so desirable an object as that 
it should be sought by such means? Shall we tax food to en- 
courage intemperance? Shall we raise the price of a wholesome 
article of sustenance, of daily consumption, especially among 
the poorer classes, in order that we may enjoy a mere chance of 
causing these same classes to use more of our home-made 
ardent spirits ? 

Sir, the bare statement of this question puts it beyond the 
reach of all argument. No man will seriously undertake the 
defence of such a tax. It is better, much more candid certainly, 
to admit, as has been admitted, that, obnoxious as it is and 
abominable as it is, it is kept in the bill with a special view to 
its effects on New England votes and New England interests. 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 237 


The bill also takes away all the drawback allowed by existing 
xaws on the exportation of spirits distilled from molasses; and 
this, it is supposed, and truly supposed, will injuriously affect 
New England. It will have this effect to a considerable degree ; 
for the exportation of such spirits is a part of her trade, and, 
though not great in amount, it is a part which mingles usefully 
with the exportation of other articles, assists to make out an 
assorted cargo, and finds a market in the North of Europe, the 
Mediterranean, and in South America. This exportation the 
bill proposes entirely to destroy. 

The increased duty on molasses, while it thus needlessly and 
wantonly enhances the price to the consumer, may affect also, 
in a greater or less degree, the importation of that article; and 
be thus injurious to the commerce of the country. The impor- 
tation of molasses, in exchange for lumber, provisions, and other 
articles of our own production, is one of the largest portions of our 
West India trade, —a trade, it may be added, though of small 
profit, yet of short voyages, suited to small capitals, employing 
many hands and much navigation, and the earliest and oldest 
branch of our foreign commerce. ‘That portion of this trade 
which we now enjoy is conducted on the freest and most liberal 
principles. The exports which sustain it are from the Hast, the 
South, and the West; every part of the country having thus an 
interest in its continuance and extension. A market for these 
exports is of infinitely more importance to any of these por- 
tions of the country, than all the benefit to be expected from 
the supposed increased consumption of spirits distilled from 
grain. 

Yet, Sir, this tax is to be kept in the bill, that New England 
may be made fo feel. Gentlemen who hold it to be wholly un- 
constitutional to lay any tax whatever for the purposes intended 
by this bill, cordially vote for this tax. An honorable gentle- 
man from Maryland* calls the whole bill a “bill of abomina- 
tions.” ‘This tax, he agrees, is one of its abominations, yet he 
votes for it. Both the gentlemen from North Carolina have 
signified their dissatisfaction with the bill, yet they have both 
voted to double the tax on molasses. Sir, do gentlemen flatter 
themselves that this course of policy can answer their purposes ? 


* Mr. Smith. 


238 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 


Do they not perceive that such a mode of proceeding, with a 
view to such avowed objects, must waken a spirit that shall treat 
taunt with scorn and bid menace defiance? Do they not know 
(if they do not, it is time they did) that a policy like this, 
avowed with such self-satisfaction, persisted in with a delight 
which should only accompany the discovery of some new and 
wonderful improvement in legislation, will compel every New 
England man to feel that he is degraded and debased if he does 
not resist it? 

Sir, gentlemen mistake us; they greatly mistake us. To 
those who propose to conduct the affairs of government, and to 
enact laws on such principles as these and for such objects as 
these, New England, be assured, will exhibit, not submission, 
but resistance; not humiliation, but disdain. Against her, de- 
pend on it, nothing will be gained by intimidation. If you pro- 
pose to suffer yourselves in order that she may be made to suffer 
also, she will bid you come on; she will meet. challenge with 
challenge; she will invite you to do your worst, and your best, 
and to see who will hold out longest. She has offered you every 
one of her votes in the Senate to strike out this tax on molas- 
ses. You have refused to join her, and to strike it out. With 
the aid of the votes of any one Southern State, for example, of 
North Carolina, it could have been struck out. But North Car- 
olina has refused her votes for this purpose. She has voted to 
keep the tax in, and to keep it in at the highest rate. And yet, 
Sir, North Carolina, whatever she may think of it, is fully as 
much interested in this tax as Massachusetts. I think, indeed, 
she is more interested, and that she will feel it more heavily and 
sorely. She is herself a great consumer of the article, through- 
out all her classes of population. This increase of the duty will 
levy on her citizens a new tax of fifty thousand dollars a year, 
or more; and yet her representatives on this floor support the 
tax, although they have so often told us that her people are now 
poor, and already borne down with taxes. North Carolina will 
feel this tax also in her trade, for what foreign commerce has 
she more useful to her than the West India market for her pro- 
visions and lumber? . And yet the gentlemen from North Caro- 
lina insist on keeping this tax in the bill, Let them not, then, 
complain. Let them not hereafter call it the work of others. It 
is their own work. Let them not lay it to the manufacturers. 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 239 


The manufacturers have had nothing to do with it. Let them 
not lay it to the wool-growers. ‘The wool-growers have had 
nothing to do with it. Let them not lay it to New England. 
New England has done nothing but oppose it, and ask them 
to oppose it also. No, Sir; let them take it to themselves. 
Let them enjoy the fruit of their own doings. Let them assign 
their motives for thus taxing their own constituents, and abide 
their judgment; but do not let them flatter themselves that New 
IKingland cannot pay a molasses tax as long as North Carolina 
chooses that such a tax shall be paid. 

Sir, [am sure there is nobody here envious of the prosperity 
of New England, or who would wish to see it destroyed. But 
if there be such anywhere, I cannot cheer them by holding out 
the hope of a speedy accomplishment of their wishes. The 
prosperity of New England, like that of other parts of the coun- 
try, may, doubtless, be affected injuriously by unwise or unjust 
laws. It may be impaired, especially, by an unsteady and shift- 
ing policy, which fosters particular objects to-day, and abandons 
them to-morrow. She may advance faster, or slower; but the 
propelling principle, be assured, is in her, deep, fixed, and active. 
Her course is onward and forward. The great powers of free 
labor, of moral habits, of general education, of good institutions, 
of skill, enterprise, and perseverance, are all working with her, 
and for her; and on the small surface which her population cov- 
ers, she is destined, I think, to exhibit striking results of the oper- 
ation of these potent causes, in whatever constitutes the happi- 
ness or the ornament of human society. 

Mr. President, this tax on molasses will benefit the treasury, 
though it will benefit nobody else. Our finances will, at least, 
be improved by it. I assure the gentlemen, we will endeavor to 
use the funds thus to be raised properly and wisely, and to the 
public advantage. We have already passed a bill for the Dela- 
ware breakwater; another is before us, for the improvement of 
several of our harbors; the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal bill has 
this moment been brought into the Senate; and next session 
we hope to bring forward the breakwater at Nantucket. These 
appropriations, Sir, will require pretty ample means; it will be 
convenient to have a well-supplied treasury; and I state for 
the especial consolation of the honorable gentlemen from North 
Carolina, that so long as they choose to compel their constit- 


240 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 


uents, and my constituents, to pay a molasses tax, the pro- 
ceeds thereof shall. be appropriated, as far as I am concerned, 
to valuable national objects, in useful and necessary works of 
internal improvements. 

Mr. President, in what I have now said, I have but followed 
where others have led, and compelled me to follow. Ihave but 
exhibited to gentlemen the necessary consequences of their own 
course of proceeding. But this manner of passing laws 1s 
wholly against my own judgment, and repugnant to all my feel- 
ings. And I would, even now, once more solicit gentlemen to 
consider whether a different course would not be more worthy 
of the Senate, and more useful to the country. Why should we 
not act upon this bill, article by article, judge fairly of each, re- 
tain what a majority approves, and reject the rest? If it be, as 
the gentleman from Maryland called it, “a bill of abominations,” 
why not strike out as many of the abominations as we can? 
Extreme measures cannot tend to good. They must produce 
mischief. If a proper and moderate bill in regard to wool and 
woollens had passed last year, we should not now be in our pres- 
ent situation. If such a bill, extended perhaps to a few other 
articles, if necessity so required, had been prepared and recom- 
mended at this session, much both of excitement and of evil 
would have been avoided. 

Nevertheless, Sir, it is for gentlemen to judge for themselves. 
If, when the wool manufacturers think they have a fair right to 
call on Congress to carry into effect what was intended for them 
by the law of 1824, and when there is manifested some disposi- 
tion to comply with what they thus request, the benefit cannot 
be granted in any other manner than by inserting it in a sort of 
bill of pains and penalties, a “ bill of abominations,” it is not for 
me to attempt to reason down what has not been reasoned up; 
but I must content myself with admonishing gentlemen that 
their policy is destined, in all probability, to terminate in their 
own sore disappointment. | 

I advert once more, Sir, to the subject of wool and woollens, 
for the purpose of showing that, even in respect to that part of 
the bill, the interest mainly protected is not that of the manufac- 
turers. On the contrary, it is that of the wool-growers. ‘The 
wool-grower is vastly more benefited than the manufacturer. 
The interest of the manufacturer is treated as secondary and 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. DAL 


subordinate, throughout the bill. Just so much, and no more, is 
done for him; as is supposed necessary to enable him to purchase 
and manufacture the wool. ‘The agricultural interest, the farm- 
ing interest, the interest of the sheep-owner, is the great object 
which the bill is calculated to benefit, and which it will benefit, 
if the manufacturer can be kept alive. A comparison of exist- 
ing duties with those proposed on the wool and on the cloth, 
will show how this part of the case stands. 

At present, a duty of thirty per cent. ad valorem is laid on all 
wool costing ten cents per pound, or upwards; and a duty of 
fifteen per cent. on all wool under that price. 

The present bill proposes a specific duty of four cents per 
pound, and also an ad valorem duty of fifty per cent. on all wool 
of every description. 

The result of the combination of these two duties is, that 
wool fit for making good cloths, and costing from thirty to forty 
cents per pound in the foreign market, will pay a duty at least 
equal to sixty per cent. ad valorem. And wool costing less than 
ten cents in the foreign market will pay a duty, on the average, 
of a hundred per cent. ad valorem. 

Now, Sir, these heavy duties are laid for the wool-grower. 
They are designed to give a spring to agriculture, by fostering 
one of its most important products. 

But let us see what is done for the manufacturer, in order to 
enable him to manufacture the raw material, at prices so much 
enhanced. 

As the bill passed the House of Representatives, the advance 
of duties on cloths is supposed to have been not more than three 
per cent. on the minimum points. ‘Taking the amount of duty 
to be now thirty-seven per cent. ad valorem on cloths, this bill, 
as it came to us, proposed, if that supposition be true, only to 
carry it up to forty. Amendments here adopted have enhanced 
this duty, and are understood to have carried it up to a duty of 
forty-five or perhaps fifty per cent. ad valorem. ‘Taking it at the 
highest, the duty on the cloth is raised thirteen per cent.; while 
that on wool is raised in some instances thirty, and in some in- 
stances eighty-five per cent.; that is, in one case from thirty to 
sixty, and in the other from fifteen to a hundred. Now the cal- 
culation is said to be true which supposes that a duty of thirty 
per cent. on the raw material enhances by fifteen per cent. the 

VOL. III. 21 


242 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 


cost of producing the cloth; the raw material being estimated 
generally to be equal to half the expense of the fabric. So that, 
while by this bill the manufacturer gains thirteen per cent. on 
the cloth, he would appear to lose fifteen per cent. on the same 
cloth by the increase in the price of the wool. And this would 
not only appear to be true, but would, i suppose. be actually 
true, were it not that the market may be open to the manufac- 
turer, under this bill, for such cloths as may be furnished at 
prices intermediate between the graduated prices established by 
the bill. 

For example, few or no foreign cloths, it is supposed, costing 
more than fifty cents a yard and less than a dollar, will be im- 
ported; therefore, American cloths worth more than fifty cents, 
and less than a dollar, will find a market. So of the intervals,. 
or intermediate spaces, between the other statute prices. In this 
mode it may be hoped that the manufacturers may be sustained, 
and rendered able to carry on the work of converting the raw 
material, the agricultural product of the country, into an article 
necessary and fit for use. This statement, I think, sufficiently 
shows that no further benefit or advantage is intended for them, 
than such as shall barely enable them to accomplish that pur- 
pose; and that the object to which all others have been made to 
yield is the advantage of agriculture. 

And yet, Sir, itis on occasion of a bill thus framed, that a 
loud and ceaseless cry has been raised against what is called the 
cupidity, the avarice, the monopolizing spirit, of New England 
manufacturers! ‘This is one of the main “ abominations of the 
bill” ; to remedy which it is proposed to keep in the other abom- 
inations. Under the prospect of advantage held out by the law 
of 1824, men have ventured their fortunes, and their means of 
subsistence for themselves and families, in woollen manufac- 
tures. ‘They have ventured investments in objects requiring a 
large outlay of capital; in mills, houses, water-works, and ex- 
pensive machinery. Jivents have occurred, blighting their pros- 
pects and withering their hopes,—events which have deprived 
them of that degree of succor which the legislature manifestly 
intended. ‘They come here asking for relief against an unfore- 
seen occurrence, for remedy against that which Congress, if it 
had foreseen, would have prevented; and they are told, that 
what they ask is an abomination! ‘They say that an interest 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 243 


important to them, and important to the country, and princi- 
pally called into existence by the government itself, has received 
a severe shock, under which it must sink, if the government will 
not, by reasonable means, endeavor to preserve what it has cre- 
ated. And they are met with a volley of hard names, a tirade 
of reproaches, and a loud cry against capitalists, speculators, and 
stock-jobbers! For one, I think them hardly treated; I think, 
and from the beginning have thought, their claim to be a fair 
one. With how much soever of undue haste, or even of credu- 
lity, they may be thought to have embarked in these pursuits, 
under the hopes held out by government, I do not feel it to be 
just that they should be abandoned to their fate on the first ad- 
verse change of circumstances; although I have always seen, 
and now see, how difficult, perhaps I should rather say how im- 
possible, it is for Congress to act, when such changes occur, in a 
manner at once efficient and discreet; prompt, and yet mod- 
erate. 

For these general reasons, and on these grounds, I am decid- 
edly in favor of a measure which shall uphold and support, in 
behalf of the manufacturers, the law of 1824, and carry its bene- 
fits and advantages to the full extent intended. And though I 
am not altogether satisfied with the particular form of these en- 
actments, I am willing to take them, in the belief that they will 
answer an essentially important and necessary purpose. 

It is now my painful duty to take notice of another part of 
the bill, which I think in the highest degree objectionable and 
unreasonable; I mean the extraordinary augmentation of the 
duty on hemp. JI cannot well conceive any thing more unwise 
or ill-judged than this appears to me to be. The duty is already 
thirty-five dollars per ton; and the bill proposes a progressive 
increase till it shall reach sixty dollars. ‘This will be absolutely 
oppressive on the shipping interest, the great consumers of the 
article. When this duty shall have reached its maximum, it 
will create an annual charge of at least one hundred thousand 
dollars, falling not on the aggregate of the commercial interest, 
but on the ship-owner. It is a very unequal burden. The nav- 
igation of the country has already a hard struggle to sustain 
itself against foreign competition; and it is singular enough, that 
this interest, which is already so severely tried, which pays so 
much in duties on hemp, duck, and iron, and which it is now 


244 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 


proposed to put under new burdens, is the only interest which is 
subject to a direct tax by a law of Congress. The tonnage duty 
is such a tax. If this bill should pass in its present form, I shall 
think it my duty, at the earliest suitable opportunity, to bring 
forward a bill for the repeal of the tonnage duty. It amounts, 
I think, to a hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year; and 
its removal will be due in all justice to the ship-owner, if he is 
to be made subject to a new taxation on hemp and iron. 

But, objectionable as this tax is, from its severe pressure on a 
particular interest, and that at present a depressed interest, there 
are still further grounds of dissatisfaction with it. It is not cal- 
culated to effect the object intended by it. If that object be the 
increase of the sale of the dew-rotted American hemp, the in- 
creased duty will have little tendency to produce that result; 
because such hemp is so much lower in price than imported 
hemp, that it must be already used for such purposes as it is fit 
for. It is said to be selling for one hundred and twenty dollars 
per ton; while the imported hemp commands two hundred and 
seventy dollars. The proposed duty, therefore, cannot materially 
assist the sale of American hemp of this quality and description. 

But the main reason given for the increase is the encourage- 
ment of American water-rotted hemp. Doubtless, this is an 
important object; but I have seen nothing to satisfy me that it 
can be obtained by means like this. At present there is pro- 
duced in the country no considerable quantity of water-rotted 
hemp. It is problematical, at best, whether it can be produced 
under any encouragement. The hemp may be grown, doubtless, 
in various parts of the United States, as well as in any country 
in the world; but the process of preparing it for use, by water- 
rotting, I believe to be more difficult and laborious than is gen- 
erally thought among us. I incline to think, that, happily for 
us, labor is in too much demand, and commands too high prices, 
to allow this process to be carried on profitably. Other objec- 
tions, also, beside the amount of labor required, may, perhaps, 
be found to exist, in climate, and in the effects liable to be pro- 
duced on health in warm countries by the nature of the process. 
But whether there be foundation for these suggestions or not, 
the fact still is, that we do not produce the article. It cannot, 
at present, be had at any price. To augment the duty, there- 
fore, on foreign hemp, can only have the effect of compelling 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 245 


the consumer to pay so much more money into the treasury. 
The proposed increase, then, is doubly objectionable; first, be- 
cause it creates a charge not to be borne equally by the whole 
country, but a new and heavy charge, to be borne exclusively by 
one particular interest; and, second, because that, of the money 
raised by this charge, little or none goes to accomplish the pro- 
fessed object, by aiding the hemp-grower; but the whole, or 
nearly the whole, falls into the treasury. Thus the effect will 
be in no way proportioned to the cause, and the advantage ob- 
tained by some not at all equal to the hardship imposed on 
others. While one interest will suffer much, the other interest 
will gain little or nothing. 

Iam quite willing to make a thorough and fair experiment, 
on the subject of water-rotted hemp; but I wish at the same 
time to do this in a manner that shall not oppress individuals, 
or particular classes. I intend, therefore, to move an amend- 
ment, which will consist in striking out so much of the bill as 
raises the duty on hemp higher than it is at present, and in 
inserting a clause, making it the duty of the navy department 
to purchase, for the public service, American water-rotted hemp, 
whenever it can be had of a suitable quality; provided it can be 
purchased at a rate not exceeding by more than twenty per 
cent. the current price of imported hemp of the same quality. 
If this amendment should be adopted, the ship-owner would 
have no reason to complain, as the price of the article would 
not be enhanced to him; and, at the same time, the hemp- 
‘grower who shall try the experiment will be made sure of a cer- 
tain market, and a high price. ‘The existing duty of thirty-five 
dollars per ton will still remain to be borne by the ship-owner. 
The twenty per cent. advance on the price of imported hemp 
will be equal to fifty dollars per ton; the aggregate will be 
eighty-five dollars; and this, it must be admitted, is a liberal 
and effective provision, and will secure every thing which can be 
reasonably desired by the hemp-grower in the most ample man- 
ner. 

But if the bill should become a law, and go into operation in 
its present shape, this duty on hemp is likely to defeat its own 
object in another way. Very intelligent persons entertain the 
opinion, that the consequence of this high duty will be such, 
that American vessels engaged in foreign commerce will, to a 

21* 


246 SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 


great extent, supply themselves with cordage abroad. ‘This, of 
course, will diminish the consumption at home, and thus injure 
the hemp-grower, and at the same time the manufacturer of 
cordage. Again, there may be reason to fear that, as the duty is 
not raised on cordage manufactured abroad, such cordage may 
be imported in greater or less degree in the place of the un- 
manufactured article. Whatever view we take, therefore, of 
this hemp duty, it appears to me altogether objectionable. 

Much has been said of the protection which the navigation 
of the country has received from the discriminating duties on 
tonnage, and the exclusive enjoyment of the coasting trade. In 
my opinion, neither of these measures has materially sustained 
the shipping interest of the United States. I do not concur in 
the sentiments on that point quoted from Dr. Seybert’s statistical 
work. Dr. Seybert was an intelligent and worthy man, and 
compiled a valuable book; but he was engaged in public life at 
a time when it was more fashionable than it has since become, 
to ascribe eflicacy to discriminating duties. ‘The shipping inter- 
est in this country has made its way by its own enterprise. By 
its own vigorous exertion it spread itself over the seas, and by 
the same exertion it still holds its place there. It seems idle to 
talk of the benefit and advantage of discriminating duties, when 
they operate against us on one side of the ocean quite as much 
as they operate for us on the other. ‘lo suppose that two na- 
tions, having intercourse with each other, can secure each to 
itself a decided advantage in that intercourse, is little less than 
absurdity; and this is the absurdity of discriminating duties. 
Still less reason is there for the idea, that our own ship-owners 
hold the exclusive enjoyment of the coasting trade only by vir- 
tue of the law which prevents foreigners from sharing it. Look 
at the rate of freights. Look at the manner in which this coast 
ing trade is conducted by our own vessels, and the competition 
which subsists between them. In a majority of instances, prob- 
ably, these vessels are owned, in whole or in part, by those who 
navigate them. ‘These owners are at home at one end of the 
voyage; and repairs and supplies are thus obtained in the cheap- 
est and most economical manner. No foreign vessels would be 
able to partake in this trade, even by the aid of preferences and 
bounties. 

The shipping interest of this country requires only an open 


SECOND SPEECH ON THE TARIFF. 247 


field, and.a fair chance. Every thing else it will do for itself. But 
it has not a fair chance while it is so severely taxed in what- 
ever enters into the necessary expense of building and equip- 
ment. In this respect, its rivals have advantages which may in 
the end prove to be decisive against us. I entreat the Senate 
to examine and weigh this subject, and not go on, blindly, to 
unknown consequences. ‘The English ship-owner is carefully 
regarded by his government, and aided and succored, whenever 
and wherever necessary, by a sharp-sighted policy. Both he 
and the American ship-owner obtain their hemp from Russia. 
But observe the difference. The duty on hemp in England is 
but twenty-one dollars; here, it is proposed to make it sixty, 
notwithstanding its cost here is necessarily enhanced by an 
additional freight, proportioned to a voyage longer than that 
which brings it to the English consumer, by the whole breadth 
of the Atlantic. 

Sir, I wish to invoke the Senate’s attention, earnestly, to the 
subject; I would awaken the regard of the whole government, 
more and more, not only on this but on all occasions, to this 
great national interest; an interest which lies at the very foun- 
dation both of our commercial prosperity and our naval achieve- 
ment, 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.* 





On the 29th of December, 1829, a resolution was moved by Mr. 
Foot, one of the Senators from Connecticut, which, after the addition of 
the last clause by amendment, stood as follows : — 

‘¢ Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to in- 
quire and report the quantity of public lands remaining unsold within 
each State and Territory. And whether it be expedient to limit for a 
certain period the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have 
heretofore been offered for sale and are now subject to entry at the 
minimum price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor-General, 
and some of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to 
the public interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to 
hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public 
lands.” 

On the 18th of January, Mr. Benton of Missouri addressed the Senate 
on the subject of this resolution. On the 19th, Mr. Hayne of South 
Carolina spoke at considerable length. After he had concluded, Mr. 
Webster rose to reply, but gave way on motion of Mr. Benton for an 
adjournment. 

On the 20th, Mr. Webster spoke as follows : — 


Noruine has been farther from my intention than to take any 
part in the discussion of this resolution. It proposes only an in- 
quiry on a subject of much importance, and one in regard to 
which it might strike the mind of the mover and of other gentle- 
men that inquiry and investigation would be useful. Although 
Iam one of those who do not perceive any particular utility in 
instituting the inquiry, I have, nevertheless, not seen that harm 
would be likely to result from adopting the resolution. Indeed, 
it gives no new powers, and hardly imposes any new duty on 


* Delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 20th of January, 1830. 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 249 


the committee. All that the resolution proposes should be done, 
the committee is quite competent, without the resolution, to do 
by virtue of its ordinary powers. But, Sir, although I have felt 
quite indifferent about the passing of the resolution, yet opinions 
were expressed yesterday on the general subject of the public 
lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from 
South Carolina, so widely diflerent from my own, that I am not 
willing to let the occasion pass without some reply. If I deemed 
the resolution as originally proposed hardly necessary, still less do 
I think it either necessary or expedient to adopt it, since a sec- 
ond branch has been added to it to-day. By this second branch, 
the committee is to be instructed to inquire whether it be expedi- 
ent to adopt measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rap- 
idly the surveys of the public lands. 

Now it appears, Mr. President, that, in forty years, we have 
sold no more than about twenty millions of acres of public 
lands. ‘The annual sales do not now exceed, and never have 
exceeded, one million of acres. A million a year is, according 
to our experience, as much as the increase of population can 
bring into settlement. And it appears, also, that we have, at 
this moment, surveyed and in the market, ready for sale, two 
hundred and ten millions of acres, or thereabouts. All this vast 
mass, at this moment, lies on our hands for mere want of pur- 
chasers. Can any man, looking to the real interests of the coun- 
try and the people, seriously think of inquiring whether we ought 
not to hasten the public surveys still faster, and to bring, still 
more and more rapidly, other vast quantities into the market? 
The truth is, that, rapidly as population has increased, the sur- 
veys have, nevertheless, outrun our wants. ‘There are more 
lands than purchasers. They are now sold at low prices, and 
taken up as fast as the increase of people furnishes hands to 
take them up. It is obvious, that. no artificial regulation, no 
forcing of sales, no giving away of the lands even, can produce 
any great and sudden augmentation of population. The ratio 
of increase, though great, has its bounds. Hands for labor are 
multiplied only at a certain rate. ‘The lands cannot be settled 
but by settlers, nor faster than settlers can be found. A system, 
if now adopted, of forcing sales, at whatever prices, may have 
the effect of throwing large quantities into the hands of individ- 
uals, who would in this way, in time, become themselves com- 


250 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


petitors with the government in the sale of land. My own 
opinion has uniformly been, that the public lands should be 
offered freely, and at low prices; so as to encourage settlement 
and cultivation as rapidly as the increasing population of the 
country is competent to extend settlement and cultivation. Ev- 
ery actual settler should be able to buy good land, at a cheap 
rate; but, on the other hand, speculation by individuals on a large 
scale should not be encouraged, nor should the value of all 
lands, sold and unsold, be reduced to nothing, by throwing new 
and vast quantities into the market at prices merely nominal. 


I now proceed, Sir, to some of the opinions expressed by the 
gentleman from South Carolina. Two or three topics were 
touched by him, in regard to which he expressed sentiments in 
which I do not at all concur. 

In the first place, Sir, the honorable gentleman spoke of the 
whole course and policy of the government towards those who 
have purchased and settled the public lands, and seemed to 
think this policy wrong. He held it to have been, from the first, 
hard and rigorous; he was of opinion, that the United States 
had acted towards those who had subdued the Western wilder- 
ness in the spirit of a step-mother; that the public domain had 
been improperly regarded as a source of revenue; and that we 
had rigidly compelled payment for that which ought to have been 
given away. He said we ought to have imitated the example 
of other governments, which had acted on a much more liberal 
system than ours, in planting colonies. He dwelt, particularly, 
upon the settlement of America by colonies from HKurope; and 
reminded us, that their governments had not exacted from those 
colonies payment for the soil. In reference to them, he said, it 
had been thought that the conquest of the wilderness was itself 
an equivalent for the soil, and he lamented that we had not fol- 
lowed that example, and pursued the same liberal course towards . 
our own emigrants to the West. 

Now, Sir, I deny, altogether, that there has been any thing 
harsh or severe in the policy of the government towards the new 
States of the West. On the contrary, | maintain that it has 
uniformly pursued towards those States a liberal and enlight- 
ened system, such as its own duty allowed and required, and 
such as their interest and welfare demanded. ‘The government 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, 251 


has been no step-mother to the new States. She has not been 
eareless of their interests, nor deaf to their requests; but from 
the first moment when the territories which now form those 
States were ceded to the Union, down to the time in which I am 
now speaking, it has been the invariable object of the govern- 
ment, to dispose of the soil according to the true spirit of the 
obligation under which it received it;,to hasten its settlement 
and cultivation, as far and as fast as practicable; and to rear the 
new communities into new and independent States, at the ear- 
liest moment of their being able, by their numbers, to form a 
regular government. 

Ido not admit, Sir, that the analogy to which the gentleman 
refers us is just, or that the cases are at all similar. There is 
no resemblance between the cases, upon which a statesman can 
found an argument. ‘The original North American colonists 
either fled from Europe, like our New England ancestors, to 
avoid persecution,.or came hither at their own charges, and often 
at the ruin of their fortunes, as private adventurers. Generally 
speaking, they derived neither succor nor protection from their 
governments at home. Wide, indeed, is the difference between 
those cases and ours. From the very origin of the government, 
these Western lands, and the just protection of those who had 
settled or should settle on them, have been the leading objects in 
our policy, and have led to expenditures, both of blood and treas- 
ure, not inconsiderable; not, indeed, exceeding the importance 
of the object, and not yielded grudgingly; but yet entitled 
to be regarded as great, though necessary sacrifices, made for 
high, proper ends. ‘The Indian title has been extinguished at 
the expense of many millions. Is that nothing? There is still 
a much more material consideration. ‘These colonists, if we 
are to call them so, in passing the Alleghanies, did not pass be- 
yond the care and protection of their own government. Where- 
ever they went, the public arm was still stretched over them. 
A parental government at home was still ever mindful of their 
condition and their wants, and nothing was spared which a 
just sense of their necessities required. Is it forgotten that it 
was one of the most arduous duties of the government, in its 
earliest years, to defend the frontiers against the Northwestern 
Indians? Are the sufferings and misfortunes under Harmar and 
St. Clair not worthy to be remembered? Do the occurrences 


252 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


connected with these military efforts show an unfeeling neglect 
of Western interests? And here, Sir, what becomes of the gen- 
tleman’s analogy? What English armies accompanied our an- 
cestors to clear the forests of a barbarous foe? What treasures 
of the exchequer were expended in buying up the original title 
to the soil? What governmental arm held its egis over our 
fathers’ heads, as they pioneered their way in the wilderness? 
Sir, it was not till General Wayne’s victory, in 1794, that it 
could be said we had conquered the savages. It was not till 
that period that the government could have considered itself as 
having established an entire ability to protect those who should 
ivderenne the conquest of the wilderness. 

And here, Sir, at the epoch of 1794, let us pause and survey 
the scene, as it actually existed thirty-five years ago. Let us 
Jook back and behold it. Over all that is now Ohio there then 
stretched one vast wilderness, unbroken except by two small 
spots of civilized culture, the one at Marietta and the other at 
Cincinnati. At these little openings, hardly each a pin’s point 
upon the map, the arm of the frontier-man had levelled the forest 
and let in the sun. These little patches of earth, themselves 
almost overshadowed by the overhanging boughs of that wilder- 
ness which had stood and perpetuated itself, from century to 
century, ever since the creation, were all that had then been ren- 
dered verdant by the hand of man. In an extent of hundreds 
and thousands of square miles, no other surface of smiling 
ereen attested the presence of civilization. ‘The hunter’s path 
crossed mighty rivers, flowing in solitary grandeur, whose sources 
lay in remote and unknown regions of the wilderness. It struck 
upon the north on a vast inland sea, over which the wintry 
tempests raged as on the ocean; all around was bare creation. 
It was fresh, untouched, unbounded, magnificent wilderness. 

And, Sir, what is it now? Is it imagination only, or can it 
possibly be fact, that presents such a change as surprises and 
astonishes us when we turn our eyes to what Ohio now is? Is 
it reality, or a dream, that, in so short a period even as thirty-five 
years, there has sprung up, on the same surface, an independent 
State with a million of people? A million of inhabitants! an 
amount of population greater than that of all the cantons of 
Switzerland; equal to one third of all the people of the United 
States when they undertook to accomplish their independence. 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 253 


This new member of the republic has already left far behind her 
a majority of the old States. She is now by the side of Vir- 
ginia and Pennsylvania; and in point of numbers will shortly 
admit no equal but New York herself. If, Sir, we may judge 
-of measures by their results, what lessons do these facts read us 
upon the policy of the government? What inferences do they 
authorize upon the general question of kindness or unkindness ? 
What convictions do they enforce as to the wisdom and ability, 
on the one hand, or the folly and incapacity, on the other, of our 
general administration of Western affairs? Sir, does it not re- 
quire some portion of self-respect in us to imagine, that, if our 
light had shone on the path of government, if our wisdom could 
have been consulted in its measures, a more rapid advance to 
strength and prosperity would have been experienced? For my 
own part, while I am struck with wonder at the success, I also 
look with admiration at the wisdom and foresight which origi- 
nally arranged and prescribed the system for the settlement of 
the public domain. Its operation has been, without a moment’s 
interruption, to push the settlement of the Western country to 
the extent of our utmost means. 
But, Sir, to return to the remarks of the honorable member 
from South Carolina. He says that Congress has sold these 
lands and put the money into the treasury, while other govern- 
ments, acting in a more liberal spirit, gave away their lands; 
and that we ought also to have given ours away. I shall not 
stop to state an account between our revenues derived from land, 
and our expenditures in Indian treaties and Indian wars. But 
I must refer the honorable gentleman to the origin of our own 
title to the soil of these territories, and remind him that we re- 
ceived them on conditions and under trusts which would have 
been violated by giving the soil away. [or compliance with 
those conditions, and the just execution of those trusts, the public 
faith was solemnly pledged. The public lands of the United 
States have been derived from four principal sources. First, 
cessions made to the United States by individual States, on 
the recommendation or request of the old Congress; secondly, 
the compact with Georgia, in 1802; thirdly, the purchase of 
Louisiana, in 1803; fourthly, the purchase of Florida, in 1819. 
Of the first class, the most important was the cession by Vir- 
ginia of all her right and title, as well of soil as jurisdiction, to all 
VOL. III. 22 


954 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


& 


the territory within the limits of her charter lying to the north- 
west of the Ohio River. It may not be ill-timed to recur to the 
causes and occasions of this and the other similar grants. 

When the war of the Revolution broke out, a great difference 
existed in different States in the proportion between people and 
territory. The Northern and Eastern States, with very small 
surfaces, contained comparatively a thick population, and there 
was generally within their limits no great quantity of waste 
lands belonging to the government, or the crown of England. 
On the contrary, there were in the Southern States, in Virginia 
and in Georgia, for example, extensive public domains, wholly 
unsettled, and belonging to the crown. As these possessions 
would necessarily fall from the crown in the event of a prosper- 
ous issue of the war, it was insisted that they ought to devolve 
on the United States, for the good of the whole. ‘The war, it 
was argued, was undertaken and carried on at the common ex- 
pense of all the colonies; its benefits, if successful, ought also to 
be common; and the property of the common enemy, when 
vanquished, ought to be regarded as the general acquisition of 
all. While yet the war was raging, it was contended that Con- 
gress ought to have the power to dispose of vacant and un- 
patented lands, commonly called crown lands, for defraying the 
expenses of the war, and for other public and general purposes. 
“Reason and justice,” said the Assembly of New Jersey, in 
1778, “must decide that the property which existed in the 
crown of Great Britain previous to the present Revolution 
ought now to belong to the Congress, in trust for the use and 
benefit of the United States. They have fought and bled for it, 
in proportion to their respective abilities, and therefore the re- 
ward ought not to be predilectionally distributed. Shall such 
States as are shut out by situation from availing themselves of 
the least advantage from this quarter be left to sink under an 
enormous debt, whilst others are enabled in a short period to re- 
place all their expenditures from the hard earnings of the whole 
confederacy ?” 

Moved by considerations and appeals of this kind, Congress 
took up the subject, and in September, 1780, recommended to 
the several States in the Union having claims to Western terri- 
tory, to make liberal cessions of a portion thereof to the United 
States; and on the 10th of October, 1780, Congress resolved, 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 9255 


that any lands so ceded, in pursuance of their preceding recom- 
mendation, should be disposed of for the common benefit of the 
United States; should be settled and formed into distinct repub- 
lican States, to become members of the Federal Union, with 
the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as 
the other States; and that the lands should be granted, or set- 
tled, at such times, and under such regulations, as should be 
agreed on by Congress. Again, in September, 1783, Congress 
passed another resolution, setting forth the conditions on which 
cessions from States should be received; and in October follow- 
ing, Virginia made her cession, reciting the resolution, or act, of 
September preceding, and then transferring to the United States 
her title to her Northwestern territory, upon the express condi- 
tion that the lands so ceded should be considered as a common 
fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States as had 
become or should become members of the confederation, Vir- 
ginia inclusive, and should be faithfully and bond fide disposed 
of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever. 
The grants from other States were on similar conditions. Mas- 
sachusetts and Connecticut both had claims to Western lands, 
and both relinquished them to the United States in the same 
manner. ‘‘hese grants were all made on three substantial con- 
ditions or trusts. First, that the ceded territories should be 
formed into States, and admitted in due time into the Union, 
with all the rights belonging to other States; secondly, that the 
lands should form a common fund, to be disposed of for the gen- 
eral benefit of all the States; and,thirdly, that they should be 
sold and settled, at such time and in such manner as Congress 
should direct. 

Now, Sir, it is plain that Congress never has been, and is not 
now, at liberty to disregard these solemn conditions. For the 
fulfilment of all these trusts, the public faith was, and is, fully 
pledged. How, then, would it have been possible for Congress, 
if it had been so disposed, to give away these public lands? 
How could it have followed the example of other govern 
ments, if there had been such, and considered the conquest ot 
the wilderness an equivalent compensation for the soil? The 
States had looked to this territory, perhaps too sanguinely, as a 
fund out of which means were to come to defray the expenses 
of the war. It had been received as a fund, as a fund Congress 


256 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


had bound itself to apply it. ‘To have given it away, would 
have defeated all the objects which Congress and _ particular 
States had had in view in asking and obtaining the cession, 
and would have plainly violated the conditions which the ceding 
States attached to their own grants. 

The gentleman admits, that the lands cannot be given away 
until the national debt is paid; because to a part of that debt 
they stand pledged. But this is not the original pledge. There 
is, so to speak, an earlier mortgage. Before the debt was funded, 
at the moment of the cession of the lands, and by the very terms 
of that cession, every State in the Union obtained an interest in 
them, as ina common fund. Congress has uniformly adhered to 
this condition. It has proceeded to sell the lands, and to realize 
as much from them as was compatible with the other trusts 
created by the same deeds of cession. One of these deeds of 
trust, as I have already said, was, that the lands should be sold 
and settled, at such time and in such manner as Congress 
shall direct. The government has always felt itself bound, in 
this respect, to exercise its own best judgment, and not to 
transfer the discretion to others. It has not felt itself at liberty 
to dispose of the soil, therefore, in large masses to individuals, 
thus leaving to them the time and manner of settlement. It 
had stipulated to use its own judgment. If, for instance, in 
order to rid itself of the trouble of forming a system for the sale 
of those lands, and going into detail, it had sold the whole of 
what is now Ohio, in one mass, to individuals or companies, it 
would clearly have departed from its just obligations. And who 
can now tell, or conjecture, how great would have been the evil 
of such a course? Who can say what mischiefs would have 
ensued, if Congress had thrown these territories into the hands 
of private speculation? Or who, on the other hand, can now 
foresee what the event would be, should the government depart 
from the same wise course hereafter, and, not content with such 
gradual absorption of the public lands as the natural growth of 
our population may accomplish, should force great portions of 
them, at nominal or very low prices, into private hands, to be 
_ sold and settled as and when such holders might think would be 
most for their own interests ? 

Hitherto, Sir, I maintain, Congress has acted wisely, and done 
its duty on this subject. I hope it will continue to do it. De- 


ie ie 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 257 


parting from the original idea, so soon as it was found practica- 
ble and convenient, of selling by townships, Congress has dis- 
posed of the soil in smaller and still smaller portions, till at 
length it sells in parcels of no more than eighty acres; thus put- 
ting it into the power of every man in the country, however 
poor, but who has health and strength, to become a freeholder 
if he desires, not of barren acres, but of rich and fertile soil. 
The government has performed all the conditions of the grant. 
While it has regarded the public lands as a common fund, and 
has sought to make what reasonably could be made of them, as 
a source of revenue, it has also applied its best wisdom to sell 
and settle them, as fast and as happily as possible; and when- 
soever numbers would warrant it, each territory has been suc- 
cessively admitted into the Union, with all the rights of an inde- 
pendent State. 

Is there then, Sir, I ask, any ground for a well-founded charge 
of hard dealing? for any just accusation of negligence, indiffer- 
ence, or parsimony, which is capable of being sustained against 
the government of the country in its conduct towards the new 
States? I think there is not. 

But there was another observation of the honorable member, 
which, I confess, did not a little surprise me. As a reason for 
wishing to get rid of the public lands as soon as we could, and 
as we might, the honorable gentleman said he wanted no _ per- 
manent sources of income. He wished to see the time when 
the government should not possess a shilling of permanent reve- 
nue. If he could speak a magical word, and by that word con- 
vert the whole Capitol into gold, the word should not be spoken. 
The administration of a fixed revenue, he said, only consolidates 
the government and corrupts the people! Sir, I confess I heard 
these sentiments uttered on this floor not without deep regret 
and pain. f 

I am aware that these and similar opinions are espoused by 
certain persons out of the Capitol and out of this government; 
but I did not expect so soon to find them here. Consolidation! 
_—that perpetual ery both of terror and delusion, ~ Consolida- 
tion! Sir, when gentlemen speak of the eflects of a common 
fund, belonging to all the States, as having a tendency to con- 
solidation, what do they mean? Do they mean, or can they 
mean, any thing more than that the union of the States will be 

22 * 


“ary. 


258 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


strengthened by whatever continues or furnishes inducements to 
the people of the States to hold together? If they mean merely 
this, then, no doubt, the public lands, as well as every thing else 
in which we have a common interest, tend to consolidation ; 
and to this species of consolidation every true American ought 
to be attached; it is neither more nor less than strengthening 
the Union itself. ‘This is the sense in which the framers of the 
Constitution use the word consolidation, and in this sense I 
adopt and cherish it. ‘They tell us, in the letter submitting the 
Constitution to the consideration of the country, that, “ In all 
our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view 
that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true 
American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved 
our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. 
This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on 
our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on 
points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise 
expected.” 

This, Sir, is General Washington’s consolidation. This is 
the true, constitutional consolidation. JI wish to see no new 
powers drawn to the general government; but I confess I re- 
joice in whatever tends to strengthen the bond that unites us, 
and encourages the hope that our Union may be perpetual. 
And therefore I cannot but feel regret at the expression of such 
opinions as the gentleman has avowed, because I think their 
obvious tendency is to weaken the bond of our connection. I 
know that there are some persons in the part of the country 
from which the honorable member comes, who habitually speak 
of the Union in terms of indifference, or even of disparage- 
ment. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and can 
never be, one of these. ‘They significantly declare, that it is 
time to calculate the value of the Union; and their aim seems 
to be to enumerate, and to magnify, all the evils, real and imagi- 
nary, which the government under the Union produces. 

‘The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously 
to bring the Union into discussion, as a mere question of present 
and temporary expediency; nothing more than a mere matter 
of profit and loss. The Union is to be preserved, while it suits 
local and temporary purposes to preserve it; and to be sun- 
dered whenever it shall be found to thwart such purposes. 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 259 


Union, of itself, is considered by the disciples of this school as 
hardly a good. It is only regarded as a possible means of good; 
or, on the other hand, as a possible means of evil. They cherish 
no deep and fixed regard for it, flowing from a thorough convie- 
tion of its absolute and vital necessity to our welfare. Sir, I 
deprecate and deplore this tone of thinking and acting. I deem 
far otherwise of the union of the States; and so did the framers 
of the Constitution themselves. What they said, I believe; 
fully and sincerely believe, that the union of the States is essen- 
tial to the prosperity and safety of the States. Iam a unionist, 
and, in this sense, a national republican. I would strengthen 
the ties that hold us together. Lar, indeed, in my wishes, very 
far distant be the day, when our associated and fraternal stripes 
shall be severed asunder, and when that happy constellation 
under which we have risen to so much renown shall be broken 
up, and sink, star after star, into obscurity and night! 

Among other things, the honorable member spoke of the pub- 
lic debt. ‘T’o that he holds the public lands pledged, and has 
expressed his usual earnestness for its total discharge. Sir, I 
have always voted for every measure for reducing the debt, since 
I have been in Congress. I wished it paid because it is a debt, 
and, so far, is a charge upon the industry of the country and the 
finances of the government. But, Sir, I have observed, ‘that, 
whenever the subject of the public debt is introduced into the 
Senate, a morbid sort of fervor is manifested in regard to it, 
which I have been sometimes at a ioss to understand. The 
' debt is not now large, and is in a course of most rapid reduction. 
A few years will see it extinguished. I am not entirely able to 
persuade myself that it is not certain supposed incidental ten- 
dencies and effects of this debt, rather than its pressure and 
charge as a debt, that cause so much anxiety to get rid of it. 
Possibly it may be regarded as in some degree a tie, holding the 
different parts of the country together, by considerations of mu- 
tual interest. If this be one of its effects, the effect itself is, in 
my Opinion, not to be lamented. Let me not be misunderstood. 
I would not continue the debt for the sake of any collateral or 
consequential advantage, such as 1 have mentioned. I onlv 
mean to say, that that consequence itself is not one that I re- 
gret; at the same time, that, if there are others who would or 
who do regret it, I differ from them. 


260 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


As I have already remarked, Sir, it was one among the rea: 
sons assigned by the honorable member for his wish to be rid of 
the public lands altogether, that the public disposition of them, 
and the revenues derived from them, tend to corrupt the people. 
This, Sir, I confess, passes my comprehension. ‘These lands 
are sold at public auction, or taken up at fixed prices, to form 
farms and freeholds. Whom does this corrupt? According to 
the system of sales, a fixed proportion is everywhere reserved, 
as a fund for education. Does education corrupt? Is the 
schoolmaster a corrupter of youth? the spelling-book, does it 
break down the morals of the rising generation? and the Holy 
Scriptures, are they fountains of corruption? Or if, in the ex- 
ercise of a provident liberality, in regard to its own property as 
a great landed proprietor, and to high purposes of utility towards 
others, the government gives portions of these lands to the mak- 
ing of a canal, or the opening of a road, in the country where 
the lands themselves are situated, what alarming and _ over- 
whelming corruption follows from all this? Can there be noth- 
ing pure in government except the exercise of mere control? 
Can nothing be done without corruption, but the impositions 
of penalty and restraint? Whatever is positively beneficent, 
whatever is actively good, whatever spreads abroad benefits and 
blessings which all can see and all can feel, whatever opens chan- 
nels of intercourse, augments population, enhances the value of 
property, and diffuses knowledge, — must all this be rejected and 
reprobated as a dangerous and obnoxious policy, hurrying us to 
the double ruin of a government, turned into despotism by the 
mere exercise of acts of beneficence, and of a people, corrupted, 
beyond hope of rescue, by the improvement of their condition ? 

The gentleman proceeded, Sir, to draw a frightful picture of 
the future. He spoke of the centuries that must elapse before 
all the lands could be sold, and the great hardships that the 
States must suffer while the United States reserve to themselves, 
within their limits, such large portions of soil, not liable to taxa- 
tion. Sir, this is all, or mostly, imagination. If these lands were 
leasehold property, if they were held by the United States on 
rent, there would be much in the idea. But they are wild lands, 
held only till they can be sold; reserved no longer than till some- 
body will take them up, at low prices. As to their not being 
taxed, I would ask whether the States themselves, if they owned 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 261 


them, would tax them before sale? Sir, if in any case any State 
can show that the policy of the United States retards her settle- 
ment, or prevents her from cultivating the lands within her lim- 
its, she shall have my vote to alter that policy. But I look upon 
the public lands as a public fund, and that we are.no more au- 
thorized to give them away gratuitously than to give away gra- 
tuitously the money in the treasury. I am quite aware, that 
the sums drawn annually from the Western States make a 
heavy drain upon them; but that is unavoidable. For that very 
reason, among others, I have always been inclined to pursue 
towards them a kind and most liberal policy; but I am not at 
liberty to forget, at the same time, what is due to other States, 
and to the solemn engagements under which the government 
rests. . 

I come now, Mr. President, to that part of the gentleman’s 
speech which has been the main occasion of my addressing the 
Senate. The East! the obnoxious, the rebuked, the always re- 
proached East! —we have come in, Sir, on this debate, for even 
more than a common share of accusation and attack. If the 
honorable member from South Carolina was not our original 
accuser, he has yet recited the indictment against us with the 
air and tone of a public prosecutor. He has summoned us to 
plead on our arraignment; and he tells us we are charged with 
the crime of a narrow and selfish policy; of endeavoring to re- 
strain emigration to the West, and, having that object in view, 
of maintaining a steady opposition to Western measures and 
Western interests. And the cause of all this narrow and selfish 
policy, the gentleman finds in the tariff; I think he called it the 
accursed policy of the tariff. This policy, the gentleman tells us, 
requires multitudes of dependent laborers, a population of pau- 
pers, and that it is to secure these at home that the Kast op- 
poses whatever may induce to Western emigration. Sir, I rise 
to defend the East. I rise to repel, both the charge itself, and 
the cause assigned for it. I deny that the Kast has, at any time, 
shown an illiberal policy towards the West. I pronounce the 
whole accusation to be without the least foundation in any 
facts, existing either now or at any previous time. I deny it in 
the general, and I deny each and all its particulars. I deny the 
sum total, and I deny the detail. I deny that the Hast has ever 
manifested hostility to the West, and I deny that she has adopt- 


262 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


ed any policy that would naturally have led her in such a 
course ; 

But the tariff! the tariff!! Sir, I beg to say in regard to the 
East, that the original policy of the tariff is not hers, whether it 
be wise or unwise. New England is not its author. If gentle- 
men will refer to the tariff of 1816, they will find that this was 
not carried by New England votes. It was truly more a South- 
ern than an Eastern measure. And what votes carried the tar- 
iff of 1824? Certainly not those of New England. It is known 
to have been made matter of reproach, especially against Mas- 
sachusetts, that she would not aid the tariff of 1824; and a self- 
. ish motive was imputed to her for that, also. In point of fact, 
it is true that she did, indeed, oppose the tariff of 1824. ‘There 
were more votes in favor of that law in the House of Represen- 
tatives, not only in each of a majority of the Western States, 
but even in Virginia herself, than in Massachusetts. It was 
literally forced upon New England; and this shows how ground- 
less, how void of all probability, must be any charge of hos- 
tility to the growth of the Western States, as naturally flow- 
ing from a cherished policy of her own. 

But leaving all conjectures about causes and motives, I go at 
once to the fact, and I meet it with one broad, comprehensive, 
and emphatic negative. I deny that, in any part of her history, 
at any period of the government, or in relation to any leading 
subject, New England has manifested such hostility as is charged 
upon her. On the contrary, I maintain that, from the day of the 
cession of the territories by the States to Congress, no portion 
of the country has acted either with more liberality or more in- 
telligence, on the subject of the public lands in the new States, 
than New England. 

This statement, though strong, is no stronger than the strict- 
est truths will warrant. Letus look at the historical facts. So 
soon as the cessions were obtained, it became necessary to make 
provision for the government and disposition of the territory. 
The country was to be governed. This, for the present, it was 
obvious, must be by some territorial system of administration. 
But the soil, also, was to be granted and settled. Those im- 
mense regions, large enough almost for an empire, were to be 
appropriated to private ownership. How was this best to be 
done? What system for sale and disposition should be adopts 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 263 


ed? ‘Two modes for conducting the sales presented themselves; 
the one a Southern, and the other a Northern mode. It would 
be tedious, Sir, here, to run out these different systems into all 
their distinctions, and to contrast the opposite results. 'That 
which was adopted was the Northern system, and is that which 
we now see in successful operation in all the new States. That 
which was rejected was the system of warrants, surveys, entry, 
and location; such as prevails south of the Ohio. It is not 
necessary to extend these remarks into invidious compari- 
sons. ‘This last system is that which, as has been expressively 
said, has shingled over the country to which it was applied 
with so many conflicting titles and claims, Every body ac- 
quainted with the subject knows how easily it leads to spec- 
ulation and litigation, — two great calamities in a new country. 
From the system actually established, these evils are banished. 
Now, Sir, in effecting this great measure, the first important 
measure on the whole subject, New England acted with vigor 
and effect, and the latest posterity of those who settled the region 
northwest of the Ohio will have reason to remember, with grat- 
itude, her patriotism and her wisdom. The system adopted was 
her own system. She knew, for she had tried and proved its 
value. It was the old-fashioned way of surveying lands before ° 
the issuing of any title papers, and then of inserting accurate 
and precise descriptions in the patents or grants, and proceeding 
with regular reference to metes and bounds. ‘This gives to origi- 
nal titles, derived from government, a certain and fixed char- 
acter; it cuts up litigation by the roots, and the settler com- 
mences his labor with the assurance that he has a clear title. It 
is easy to perceive, but not easy to measure, the importance of 
this in a new country. New England gave this system to the 
West; and while it remains, there will be spread over all the 
West one monument of her intelligence in matters of govern- 
ment, and her practical good sense. 

At the foundation of the constitution of these new North- 
western States lies the celebrated Ordinance of 1787. We are 
accustomed, Sir, to praise the lawgivers of antiquity; we help to 
perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt wheth- 
er one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has pro- 
duced effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character than 
the Ordinance of 1787. ‘That instrument was drawn by Nathan 


264 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


Dane, then and now a citizen of Massachusetts. It was adopt- 
ed, as I think I have understood, without the slightest altera- 
tion; and certainly it has happened to few men to be the 
authors of a political measure of more large and enduring con- 
sequence. It fixed for ever the character of the population in 
the vast regions northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them 
involuntary servitude. It impressed on the soil itself, while it 
was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to sustain any other than 
freemen. It laid the interdict against personal servitude, in 
original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper, 
also, than all local constitutions. Under the circumstances then 
existing, | look upon this original and seasonable provision as a 
real good attained. We see its consequences at this moment, 
and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the Ohio 
shall flow. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. 
Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of 
Kentucky, were I to ask whether, if such an ordinance could 
have been applied to his own State, while it yet was a wilder- 
ness, and before Boone had passed the gap of the Alleghanies, 
he does not suppose it would have contributed to the ultimate 
ereatness of that commonwealth? It is, at any rate, not to be 
doubted, that, where it did apply, it has produced an effect not 
easily to be described or measured, in the growth of the States, 
and the extent and increase of their population. Now, Sir, as I 
have stated, this great measure was brought forward in 1787, by 
the North. It was sustained, indeed, by the votes of the South, 
but it must have failed without the cordial support of the 
New England States. If New England had been governed by 
the narrow and selfish views now ascribed to her, this very 
measure was, of all others, the best calculated to thwart her 
purposes. It was, of all things, the very means of rendering 
certain a vast emigration from her own population to the West. 
She looked to that consequence only to disregard it. She 
deemed the regulation a most useful one to the States that 
would spring up on the territory, and advantageous to the coun- 
_ try at large. She adhered to the principle of it perseveringly, 
year after year, until it was finally accomplished. 

Leaving, then, Mr. President, these two great and leading 
measures, and coming down to our own times, what is there in 
the history of recent measures of government that exposes New 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, 265 


England to this accusation of hostility to Western interests? I 
assert, boldly, that, in all measures conducive to the welfare of 
the West, since my acquaintance here, no part of the country 
has manifested a more liberal policy. 1 beg to say, Sir, that I do 
not state this with a view of claiming for her any special regard 
on that account. Not atall. She does not place her support 
of measures on the ground of favor conferred. Far otherwise. 
What she has done has been consonant to her view of the gen- 
eral good, and therefore she has done it. She has sought to 
make no gain of it; on the contrary, individuals may have felt, 
undoubtedly, some natural regret at finding the relative impor- 
tance of their own States diminished by the growth of the 
West. But New England has regarded that as the natural 
course of things, and has never complained of it. Let me see, 
Sir, any one measure favorable to the West, which has been 
opposed by New England, since the government bestowed its at- 
tention on these Western improvements. Select what you will, 
if it be a measure of acknowledged utility, I answer for it, it 
will be found that not only were New England votes for it, but 
that New England votes carried it. Will you take the Cumber- 
land Road? who has made that? Will you take the Portland 
Canal? whose support carried that bill? Sir, at what period 
beyond the Greek kalends could these measures, or measures 
like these, have been accomplished, had they depended on the 
votes of Southern gentlemen? Why, Sir, we know that we 
must have waited till the constitutional notions of those gentle- 
men had undergone an entire change. Generally speaking, they 
have done nothing, and can do nothing. All that has been 
effected has been done by the votes of reproached New Eng- 
land. I undertake to say, Sir, that if you look to the votes on 
any one of these measures, and strike out from the list of ayes 
the names of New England members, it will be found that, in 
every case, the South would then have voted down the West, 
and the measure would have failed. I do not believe any one 
instance can be found where this is not strictly true. I do not 
believe that one dollar has been expended for these purposes be- 
yond the mountains, which could have been obtained without 
cordial codperation and support from New England. 

Sir, 1 put the question to the West itself. Let gentlemen 
who have sat here ten years come forth and declare, by what 

VOL. III. 23 


266 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


aids, and by whose votes, they have succeeded, in measures 
deemed of essential importance to their part of the country. 
To all men of sense and candor, in or out of Congress, who 
have any knowledge upon the subject, New England may ap- 
peal for refutation of the reproach it is now attempted to cast 
upon her in this respect. 

I take the liberty to repeat, that I make no claim on behalf of 
New England, or on account of that which I have now stated. 
She does not profess to have acted out of favor; for it would 
not become her so to have acted. She asks for no especial 
thanks; but, in the consciousness of having done her duty in 
these things uprightly and honestly, and with a fair and liberal 
spirit, be assured she will repel, whenever she thinks the occa. 
sion calls for it, an unjust and groundless imputation of partial- 
ity and selfishness. 

The gentleman alluded to a report of the late Secretary of the 
Treasury, which, according to his reading or construction of it, 
recommended what he calls the tariff policy, or a branch of that 
policy; that is, the restraining of emigration to the West, for 
the purpose of keeping hands at home to carry on manufactures. 
I think, Sir, that the gentleman misapprehended the meaning 
of the Secretary, in the interpretation given to his remarks. I 
understand him only as saying, that, since the low price of lands 
at the West acts as a constant and standing bounty to agricul- 
ture, it is, on that account, the more reasonable to provide en- 
couragement for manufactures. But, Sir, even if the Secretary’s 
observation were to be understood as the gentleman understands 
it, it would not be a sentiment borrowed from any New Eng- 
land source. Whether it be right or wrong, it does not origi- 
nate in that quarter. 

In the course of these remarks, Mr. President, I have spoken 
of the supposed desire, on the part of the Atlantic States, to 
check, or at least not to hasten, Western emigration, as a nar- 
row policy. Perhaps I ought to have qualified the expression; 
because, Sir, I am now about to quote the opinion of one 
to whom I would impute nothing narrow. I am about to 
refer you to the language of a gentleman of much and de- 
served distinction, a member of the other House, and occu- 
pying a prominent situation there. ‘The gentleman, Sir, is from 
South Carolina. In 1825, a debate arose in the House of Rep- 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 267 


resentatives on the subject of the Western Road. It happened 
to me to take some part in the debate; I was answered by the 
honorable gentleman to whom I allude, and I replied. May I 
be pardoned, Sir, if I read a part of this debate. 


“The gentleman from Massachusetts has urged,” said Mr. McDuffie, 
“as one leading reason why the government should make roads to the 
West, that these roads have a tendency tosettle the public lands; that 
they increase the inducements to settlement, and that this is a national 
object. Sir, I differ entirely from his views on the subject. I think 
that the public lands are settling quite fast enough; that our people 
need no stimulus to urge them thither, but want rather a check, at 
least on that artificial tendency to Western settlement which we have 
created by our own laws. 

“The gentleman says, that the great object of government with re- 
spect to those lands is, not to make them a source of revenue, but to get 
them settled. What would have been thought of this argument in the 
old thirteen States ? It amounts to this, that those States are to offer a 
bonus of their own impoverishment, to create a vortex to swallow up our 
floating population. Look, Sir, at the present aspect of the Southern 
States. In no part of Europe will you see the same indications of de- 
cay. Deserted villages, houses falling to ruin, impoverished lands 
thrown out of cultivation. Sir, I believe that, if the public lands had 
never been sold, the aggregate amount of the national wealth would 
have been greater at this moment. Our population, if concentrated in 
the old States, and not ground down by tariffs, would have been more 
prosperous and wealthy. But every inducement has been held out to 
them to settle in the West, until our population has become sparse, and 
then the effects of this sparseness are now to be counteracted by another 
artificial system. Sir, I say if there is any object worthy the attention 
of this government, it is a plan which shall limit the sale of the public 
lands. If those lands were sold according to their real value, be it so. 
But while the government continues as it does to give them away, they 
will draw the population of the older States, and still further increase 
the effect which is already distressingly felt, and which must go to di- 
minish the value of all those States possess. And this, Sir, is held out _ 
to us as a motive for granting the present appropriation. I would not, 
indeed, prevent the formation of roads on these considerations, but I 
certainly would not encourage it. Sir, there is an additional item in the 
account of the benefits which this government has conferred on the 
Western States. It is the sale of the public lands at the minimum price. 
At this moment we are selling to the people of the West, lands, at one 
dollar and twenty-five cents, which are worth fifteen dollars, and which 
would seli at that price if the markets were not glutted.” 


268 FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 
Mr. Webster observed, in reply, that 


‘The gentleman from South Carolina had mistaken him, if he sup- 
posed that it was his wish so to hasten the sales of the public lands, as 
to throw them into the hands of purchasers who would sell again. His 
idea only went as far as this: that the price should be fixed so low as 
not to prevent the settlement of the lands, yet not so low as to allow 
Speculators to purchase. Mr. Webster observed, that he could not at all 
concur with the gentleman from South Carolina, in wishing to restrain 
the laboring classes of population in the Eastern States from going to 
any part of our territory where they could better their condition ; nor 
did he suppose that such an idea was anywhere entertained. ‘The ob- 
servations of the gentleman had opened to him new views of policy on 
this subject, and he thought he now could perceive why some of our 
States continued to have such bad roads; it must be for the purpose of 
preventing people from going out of them. ‘The gentleman from South 
Carolina supposes, that, if our population had been confined to the old 
thirteen States, the aggregate wealth of the country would have been 
greater than it now is. But, Sir, it is an error, that the increase of the 
aggregate of the national wealth is the object chiefly to be pursued by 
government. The distribution of the national wealth is an object quite 
as important as its increase. He was not surprised that the old States 
not increasing in population so fast as was expected, (for he believed 
nothing like a decrease was pretended,) should be an idea by no means 
agreeable to gentlemen from those States. We are all reluctant to 
submit to the loss of relative importance; but this was nothing more 
than the natural condition of a country densely peopled in one part, 
and possessing in another a vast tract of unsettled lands. The plan of 
the gentleman went to reverse the order of nature, vainly expecting to 
retain men within a small and comparatively unproductive territory, ‘ who 
have all the world before them where to choose.’ For his own part, he 
was in favor of letting population take its own course ; he should expe- 
rience no feeling of mortification if any of his constituents liked better 
to settle on the Kansas or Arkansas, or elsewhere within our territory ; 
let them go, and be happier if they could. The gentleman says, our 
aggregate of wealth would have been greater if our population had been 
restrained within the limits of the old States; but does he not consider 
population to be wealth? And has not this been increased by the set- 
tlement of a new and fertile country ? Such a country presents the most 
alluring of all prospects to a young and laboring man; it gives hima 
freehold, it offers to him weight and respectability in society ; and above 
all, it presents to him a prospect of a permanent provision for his chil- 
dren. Sir, these are inducements which never were resisted, and never 


FIRST SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 269 


will be ; and, were the whole extent of country filled with population 
up to the Rocky Mountains, these inducements would carry that popula- 
tion forward to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. Sir, it is in vain to 
talk ; individuals will seek their own good, and not any artificial aggre- 
gate of the national wealth. A young enterprising and hardy agricul- 
turist can conceive of nothing better to him than plenty of good, cheap 
land.” 


Sir, with the reading of these extracts I leave the subject. 
The Senate will bear me witness that Iam not accustomed to 
allude to local‘opinions, nor to compare or contrast different 
portions of the country. I have often suffered things to pass 
without any observation, which I might properly enough have 
considered as deserving remark. But I have felt it my duty, 
on this occasion, to vindicate the State I represent from charges 
and imputations on her public character and conduct, which I 
know to be undeserved and unfounded. If advanced elsewhere, 
they might be passed, perhaps, without notice. But whatever 
is said here is supposed to be entitled to public regard, and to 
deserve public attention; it derives importance and dignity 
from the place where it is uttered. As a true representative of 
the State which has sent me here, it is my duty, and a duty 
which I shall fulfil, to place her history and her conduct, her 
honor and her character, in their just and proper light, so often 
as I think an attack is made upon her, so respectable as to de- 
serve to be repelled. 


pet 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.* 


Mr. Wesster having concluded the preceding speech, Mr. Benton 
spoke in reply, on the 20th and 21st of January, 1830. Mr. Hayne of 
South Carolina followed on the same side, but, after some time, gave 
way for a motion for adjournment. On Monday, the 25th, Mr. Hayne 
resumed, and concluded his argument. Mr. Webster immediately rose 
in reply, but yielded the floor for a motion for adjournment. 

The next day (26th January, 1830) Mr. Webster took the floor and 
delivered the following speech, which has given such great celebrity,to 
the debate. The circumstances connected with this remarkable effort 
of parliamentary eloquence are stated in the biographical memoir in 
the first volume of this collection. 


Mr. Presipent,— When the mariner has been tossed for 
many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he natu- 
rally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest 
glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the 
elements have driven him from his true course. Let us imi- 
tate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the waves of 
this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we 
may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. I ask for 
the reading of the resolution before the Senate. 


The Secretary read the resolution, as follows : — 

“ Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to in- 
quire and report the quantity of public lands remaining unsold within 
each State and Territory, and whether it be expedient to limit for a cer- 
tain period the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have hereto- 
fore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at the minimum 


* Delivered in the Senate of the United States on the 26th of January, 1830. 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. O71, 


price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor-General, and some 
of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to the public 
interest ; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the sales 
and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands.” 


We have thus heard, Sir, what the resolution is which is ac- 
tually before us for consideration; and it will readily occur to 
eyery one, that it is almost the only subject about which some- 
thing has not been said in the speech, running through two 
days, by which the Senate has been entertained by the gentle- 
man from South Carolina. Every topic in the wide range of 
our public affairs, whether past or present, — every thing, general 
or local, whether belonging to national politics or party politics, 
—seems to have attracted more or less of the honorable mem- 
ber’s attention, save only the resolution before the Senate. He 
has spoken of every thing but the public lands; they have 
escaped his notice. ‘To that subject, in all his excursions, he 
has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance. 

When this debate, Sir, was to be resumed, on Thursday 
morning, it so happened that it would have been convenient for 
me to be elsewhere. The honorable member, however, did not 
incline to put off the discussion to another day. He had a 
shot, he said, to return, and he wished to discharge it. ‘That 
shot, Sir, which he thus kindly informed us was coming, that 
we might stand out of the way, or prepare ourselves to fall by it 
and die with decency, has now been received. Under all advan- 
tages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which pre- 
ceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent its force. It may 
become me to say no more of its effect, than that, if nobody 
is found, after all, either killed or wounded, it is not the first 
time, in the history of human affairs, that the vigor and success 
of the war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounahne 
phrase of the manifesto. 

The gentleman, Sir, in declining to postpone the Bate told 
the Senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that 
there was something rankling here, which he wished to relieve. 
{Mr. Hayne rose, and disclaimed having used the word rank- 
ling.| It would not, Mr. President, be safe for the honorable 
member to appeal to those around him, upon the question 
whether he did in fact make use of that word. But he may 
have been unconscious of it. At any rate, it is enough that he 


272 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


disclaims it. But still, with or without the use of that particu- 
lar word, he had yet something here, he said, of which he wished 
to rid himself by an immediate reply. In this respect, Sir, I 
have a great advantage over the honorable gentleman. There 
is nothing here, Sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness; 
neither fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more trou- 
blesome than either, the consciousness of having been in the 
wrong. There is nothing, either originating here, or now received 
here by the gentleman’s shot. Nothing originating here, for I 
had not the slightest feeling of unkindness towards the hon- 
orable member. Some passages, it is true, had occurred since 
our acquaintance in this body, which I could have wished might 
have been otherwise; but I had used philosophy and forgotten 
them. I paid the honorable member the attention of listen- 
ing with respect to his first speech; and when he sat down, 
though surprised, and I must even say astonished, at some of 
his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to 
commence any personal warfare. Through the whole of the 
few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and care- 
fully, every thing which I thought possible to be construed into 
disrespect. And, Sir, while there is thus nothing originating 
here which I have wished at any time, or now wish, to discharge, 
I must repeat, also, that nothing has been received here which 
rankles, or in any way gives me annoyance. I will not accuse 
the honorable member of violating the rules of civilized war; 
I will not say, that he poisoned his arrows. But whether his 
shafts were, or were not, dipped in that which would have 
caused rankling if they had reached their destination, there was 
not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring 
them to their mark. If he wishes now to gather up those shafts, 
he must look for them elsewhere; they will not be found fixed 
and quivering in the object at which they were aimed. 

The honorable member complained that I had slept on his 
speech. I must have slept on it, or not slept at,all. The mo- 
ment the honorable member sat down, his friend from Missouri: 
rose, and, with much honeyed commendation of the speech, sug- 
gested that the impressions which it had produced were too 
charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments or 
other sounds, and proposed that the Senate should adjourn. 
Would it have been quite amiable in me, Sir, to interrupt this” 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 273 


excellent good feeling? Must I not have been absolutely mali- 
cious, if I could have thrust myself forward, to destroy sensa- 
tions thus pleasing? Was it not much better and kinder, 
both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others also the 
pleasure of sleeping upon them? But if it be meant, by 
sleeping upon his speech, that I took time to prepare a reply 
to it, it is quite a mistake. Owing to other engagements, I 
could not employ even the interval between the adjournment 
of the Senate and its meeting the next morning, in atten- 
tion to the subject of this debate. Nevertheless, Sir, the mere 
matter of fact is undoubtedly true. I did sleep on the gentle- 
man’s speech, and slept soundly. And I slept equally well on 
his speech of yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is quite 
possible that in this respect, also, I possess some advantage over 
the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler tem- 
perament on my part; for, in truth, I slept upon his speeches 
remarkably well. 

But the gentleman inquires why he was made the object of 
such a reply. Why was he singled out? If an attack has been 
made on the East, he, he assures us, did not begin it; it was 
made by the gentleman from Missouri. Sir, I answered the 
gentleman’s speech because I happened to hear it; and because, 
also, I chose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unan- 
swered, I thought most likely to produce injurious impressions. 
I did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill. 
I found a responsible indorser before me, and it was my pur- 
pose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibil- 
ity, without delay. But, Sir, this interrogatory of the honorable 
member was only introductory to another. He proceeded to 
ask me whether I had turned upon him, in this debate, from 
the consciousness that I should find an overmatch, if I ventured 
on a contest with his friend from Missouri. If, Sir, the hon- 
orable member, modestie gratia, had chosen thus to defer to 
his friend, and to pay him a compliment, without intentional 
disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to 
the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my 
own feelings. I am not one of those, Sir, who esteem any trib- 
ute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious 
and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much 
unjustly withholden from themselves. But the tone and man 


274 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


ner of the gentleman’s question forbid me thus to interpret 
it. I am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a 
civility to his friend. It had an air of taunt and disparagement, 
something of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not 
allow me to pass it over without notice. It was put as a ques- 
tion for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me 
to answer, whether I deemed the member from Missouri an 
overmatch for myself, in debate here. It seems to me, Sir, that 
this is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone, for 
the discussions of this body. 

Matches and overmatches! Those terms are more applicable 
elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this. 
Sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. 
This is a Senate, a Senate of equals, of men of individual honor 
and personal character, and of absolute independence. We 
know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. ‘This is a hall 
for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the 
exhibition of champions. I offer myself, Sir, as a match for no 
man; I throw the challenge of debate at no man’s feet. But 
then, Sir, since the honorable member has put the question in a 
manner that calls for an answer, I will give him an answer; 
and I tell him, that, holding myself to be the humblest of the 
members here, I yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from 
Missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of his friend 
from South Carolina, that need deter even me from espousing 
whatever opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating 
whenever I may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever I 
may see fit to say, on the floor of the Senate. Sir, when ut- 
tered as matter of commendation or compliment, I should dis- 
sent from nothing which the honorable member might say of 
his friend. Still less do I put forth any pretensions of my own. 
But when put to me as matter of taunt, I throw it back, and 
say to the gentleman, that he could possibly say nothing less 
likely taan such a comparison to wound my pride of personal 
character. The anger of its tone rescued the remark from in- 
tentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its 
general acceptation. But, Sir, if it be imagined that by this 
mutual quotation and commendation; if it be supposed that, by 
casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each his part, 
to one the attack, to another the cry of onset; or if it be 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 275 


thought that, by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated vic- 
tory, any laurels are to be won here; if it be imagined, espe- 
cially, that any, or all these things will shake any purpose of 
mine, I can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he is 
greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose tem- 
per and character he has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall not 
allow myself, on this occasion, I hope on no occasion, to be be- 
trayed into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as I trust I 
never shal} be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable 
member may perhaps find that, in that contest, there will be 
blows to take as well as blows to give; that others can state 
comparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his 
impunity may possibly demand of him whatever powers of 
taunt and sarcasm he may possess. I commend him to a pru- 
dent husbandry of his resources. 

But, Sir, the Coalition! The Coalition! Ay, “the murdered 
Coalition!” The gentleman asks, if I were led or frighted into 
this debate by the spectre of the Coalition. “ Was it the ghost 
of the murdered Coalition,” he exclaims, “which haunted the 
member from Massachusetts; and which, like the ghost of Ban- 
quo, would never down?” “The murdered Coalition!” ‘Su, 
this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late administration, 
is not original with the honorable member. It did not spring up 
in the Senate. Whether as a fact, as an argument, or as an 
embellishment, it is all borrowed. He adopts it, indeed, from a 
very low origin, and a still lower present condition. It is one 
of the thousand calumnies with which the press teemed, during 
an excited political canvass. It was a charge, of which there 
was not only no proof or probability, but which was in itself 
wholly impossible to be true. No man of common information 
ever believed a syllable of it. Yet it was of that class of false- 
hoods, which, by continued repetition, through all the organs of 
detraction and abuse, are capable of misleading those who are 
already far misled, and of further fanning passion already kin- 
dling into flame. Doubtless it served in its day, and in greater 
or less degree, the end designed by it. Having done that, it has 
sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed calumnies. It 
is the very cast-off slough of a polluted and shameless press. 
‘Incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and 
despised. It is not now, Sir, in the power f the honorable 


‘ 


276 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


member to give it dignity or decency, by attempting to elevate 
it, and to introduce it into the Senate. He cannot change it 
from what it is, an object of general disgust and scorn. On the 
contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch it, is more likely to 
drag him down, down, to the place where it lies itself. 

But, Sir, the honorable member was not, for other reasons, 
entirely happy in his allusion to the story of Banquo’s murder 
and Banquo’s ghost. It was not, I think, the friends, but the 
enemies of the murdered Banquo, at whose bidding his spiri 
would not down. ‘The honorable gentleman is fresh in his read- 
ing of the English classics, and can put me right if Iam wrong; 
but, according to my poor recollection, it was at those who had 
begun with caresses and ended with foul and treacherous mur- 
der that the gory locks were shaken. ‘The ghost of Banquo, 
like that of Hamlet, was an honest ghost. It disturbed no inno- 
cent man. It knew where its appearance would strike terror, 
and who would cry out, A ghost! It made itself visible in the 
right quarter, and compelled the guilty and the conscience- 
smitten, and none others, to start, with, 


‘‘Pr'ythee, see there! behold! —look ! lo 
If I stand here, I saw him!” 


Tuer eyeballs were seared (was it not so, Sir?) who had 
thought to shield themselves by concealing their own hand, and 
laying the imputation of the crime on a low and hireling agency 
in wickedness; who had vainly attempted to stifle the workings 
of their own coward consciences by ejaculating through white 
lips and chattering teeth, “Thou canst not say I did it!” JI 
have misread the great poet if those who had no way partaken 
in the deed of the death, either found that they were, or feared 
that they should be, pushed from their stools by the ghost of the 
slain, or exclaimed to a spectre created by their own fears and 
their own remorse, “ Avaunt! and quit our sight!” 

There is another particular, Sir, in which the honorable mem- 
ber’s quick perception of resemblances might, I should think, 
have seen something in the story of Banquo, making it not alto- 
gether a subject of the most pleasant contemplation. ‘Those 
who murdered Banquo, what did they win by it? Substantial 
good? Permanent power? Or disappointment, rather, and sore 
mortification; dust and ashes, the common fate of vaulting 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, 277 


ambition overleaping itself? Did not even-handed justice ere 
long commend the poisoned chalice to their own lips? Did they 
not soon find that for another they had “ filed their mind”? that 
their ambition, though apparently for the moment successful, had 
but put a barren sceptre in their grasp? Ay, Sir, 
‘a barren sceptre in their gripe, 

Thence to be wrenched with an unlineal hand, 

No son of theirs succeeding.”’ 

Sir, I need pursue the allusion no farther. I leave the honor- 
able gentleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive from it 
all the gratification it is calculated to administer. If he finds 
himself pleased with the associations, and prepared to be quite 
satisfied, though the parallel should be entirely completed, I had 
almost said, I am satisfied also; but that I shall think of. Yes, 
Sir, I will think of that. 

In the course of my observations the other day, Mr. President, 
I paid'a passing tribute of respect to a very worthy man, Mr. 
Dane of Massachusetts. It so happened that he drew the Ordi- 
nance of 1787, for the government of the Northwestern Terri- 
tory. A man of so much ability, and so little pretence; of so 
great a capacity to do good, and so unmixed a disposition to do 
it for its own sake; a gentleman who had acted an important 
part, forty years ago, in a measure the influence of which is still 
deeply felt in the very matter which was the subject of debate, 
might, I thought, receive from me a commendatory recognition. 
But the honorable member was inclined to be facetious on the 
subject. He was rather disposed to make it matter of ridicule, 
that I had introduced into the debate the name of one Nathan 
Dane, of whom he assures us he had never before heard. Sir, 
if the honorable member had never before heard of Mr. Dane, I 
am sorry for it. It shows him less acquainted with the public 
men of the country than I had supposed. Let me tell him, 
however, that a sneer from him at the mention of the name of 
Mr. Dane is in bad taste. It may well be a high mark of am- 
bition, Sir, either with the honorable gentleman or myself, to 
accomplish as much to make our names known to advantage, 
and remembered with gratitude, as Mr. Dane has accomplished. 
But the truth is, Sir, I suspect, that Mr. Dane lives a little too 
far north. He is of Massachusetts, and too near the north star 
to be reached by the honorable gentleman’s telescope. If his 

VOL, III. 24 


278 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


sphere had happened to range south of Mason and Dixon’s line, 
he might, probably, have come within the scope of his vision. 

-I spoke, Sir, of the Ordinance. of 1787, which prohibits slav- 
ery, in all future times, northwest of the Ohio, as a measure of 
great wisdom and foresight, and one which had been attended 
with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. I sup- 
posed that, on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could 
entertain different opinions. But the simple expression of this 
sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defence 
of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but also into a 
warm accusation against me, as having attacked the system of 
domestic slavery now existing in the Southern States. For all 
this, there was not the slightest foundation, in any thing said or 
intimated by me. I did not utter a single word which any inge- 
nuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. 
I said, only, that it was highly wise and useful, in legislating for 
the Northwestern country while it was yet a wilderness, to pro- 
hibit the introduction of slaves; and I added, that I presumed 
there was no reflecting and intelligent person, in the neigh- 
boring State of Kentucky, who would doubt that, if the same 
prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over 
that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this 
day, have been far greater than they are. If these opinions be 
thought doubtful, they are nevertheless, I trust, neither extra- 
ordinary nor disrespectful. They attack nobody and menace 
nobody. And yet, Sir, the gentleman’s optics have discovered, 
even in the mere expression of this sentiment, what he calls the 
very spirit of the Missouri question! He represents me as mak- 
ing an onset on the whole South, and manifesting a spirit which 
would interfere with, and disturb, their domestic condition! 

Sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, than as it is com- 
mitted here, and committed without the slightest pretence of 
ground for it. I say it only surprises me as being done here; 
for I know full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy 
of some persons in the South, for years, to represent the people 
of the North as disposed to interfere with them in their own 
exclusive and peculiar concerns. This is a delicate and sensi- 
tive point in Southern feeling; and of late years it has always 
been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object 
has been to unite the whole South against Northern men or 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 279 


Northern measures. This feeling, always carefully kept alive, 
and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or 
reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. — It 
moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direc- 
tion. But it is without adequate cause, and the suspicion which 
exists is wholly groundless. ‘There is not, and never has been, 
a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of 
the South. Such interference has never been supposed to be 
within the power of government; nor has it been in any way 
attempted. ‘The slavery of the South has always been regarded 
as a matter of domestic policy, left with the States themselves, 
and with which the federal government had nothing to do. Cer- 
tainly, Sir, I am, and ever have been, of that opinion. The 
gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no 
evil. Most assuredly I need not say I differ with him, altogether 
and most widely, on that point. I regard domestic slavery as 
one of the greatest evils, both moral and political. But whether 
it be a malady, and whether it be curable, and if so, by what 
means; or, on the other hand, whether it be the vulnus immedi- 
cabile of the social system, I leave it to those whose right and 
duty it is to inquire and to decide. And this I believe, Sir, is, 
and uniformly has been, the sentiment of the North. Let us 
look a little at the history of this matter. 

When the present Constitution was submitted for the ratifica- 
tion of the people, there were those who imagined that the 
powers of the government which it proposed to establish might, 
in some possible mode, be exerted in measures tending to the 
abolition of slavery. This suggestion would of course attract 
much attention in the Southern conventions. In that of Vir- 
ginia, Governor Randolph said :— 

“J hope there is none here, who, considering the subject in 
the calm light of philosophy, will make an objection dishonorable 
to Virginia; that, at the moment they are securing the rights 
of their citizens, an objection is started, that there is a spark of 
hope that those unfortunate men now held in bondage may, by 
the operation of the general government, be made free.” 

At the very first Congress, petitions on the subject were pre- 
sented, if I mistake not, from different States. ‘The Pennsyl- 
vania society for promoting the abolition of slavery took a lead, 
and laid before Congress a memorial, praying Congress to pro- 


280 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


mote the abolition by such powers as it possessed. This me- 
morial was referred, in the House of Representatives, to a select 
committee, consisting of Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire, Mr. 
Gerry of Massachusetts, Mr. Huntington of Connecticut, Mr. 
Lawrence of New York, Mr. Sinnickson of New Jersey, Mr. 
Hartley of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Parker of Virginia; all of 
them, Sir, as you will observe, Northern men but the last. This 
committee made a report, which was referred to a committee 
of the whole House, and there considered and discussed for 
several days; and being amended, although without material 
alteration, it was made to express three distinct propositions, on 
the subject of slavery and the slave-trade. First, in the words 
of the Constitution, that Congress could not, prior to the year 
1808, prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as 
any of the States then existing should think proper to admit; 
and secondly, that Congress had authority to restrain the citizens 
of the United States from carrying on the African slave-trade, 
for the purpose of supplying foreign countries. On this propo- 
sition, our early laws against those who engage in that traffic 
are founded. ‘The third proposition, and that which bears on 
the present question, was expressed in the following terms : — 

“ Resolved, That Congress have no authority to interfere in the 
emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any of the 
States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide 
rules and regulations therein which humanity and true policy 
may require.” 

This resolution received the sanction of the House of Repre- 
sentatives so early as March, 1790. And now, Sir, the honor- 
able member will allow me to remind him, that not only were 
the select committee who reported the resolution, with a single 
exception, all Northern men, but also that, of the members then 
composing the House of Representatives, a large majority, I be- 
lieve nearly two thirds, were Northern men also. 

The House agreed to insert these resolutions in its journal 
and from that day to this it has never been maintained or con- 
tended at the North, that Congress had any authority to regulate 
or interfere with the condition of slaves in the several States. 
No Northern gentleman, to my knowledge, has moved any such 
question in either House of Congress. 

The fears of the South, whatever fears they might have enter- 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 281 


tained, were allayed and quieted by this early decision; and so 
remained till they were excited afresh, without cause, but for 
eollateral and indirect purposes. When it became necessary, or 
was thought so, by some political persons, to find an unvarying 
ground for the exclusion of Northern men from confidence and 
from lead in the affairs of the republic, then, and not till then, 
the ery was raised, and the feeling industriously excited, that the 
influence of Northern men in the public counsels would endan- 
ger the relation of master and slave. For myself, I claim no 
other merit than that this gross and enormous injustice towards 
the whole North has not wrought upon me to change my opin- 
ions or my political conduct. I hope I am above violating my 
principles, even under the smart of injury and false imputations. 
Unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach, whatever pain I 
may experience from them, will not induce me, I trust, to over- 
step the limits of constitutional duty, or to encroach on the 
rights of others. 'The domestic slavery of the Southern States I 
leave where I find it, —in the hands of their own governments. 
It is their affair, not mine. Nor do I complain of the peculiar 
effect which the magnitude of that population has had in the dis- 
tribution of power under this federal government. We know, 
Sir, that the representation of the States in the other house 
is not equal. We know that great advantage in that respect is 
enjoyed by the slave-holding States; and we know, too, that 
the intended equivalent for that advantage, that is to say, the 
imposition of direct taxes in the same ratio, has become merely 
nominal, the habit of the government being almost invariably to 
collect its revenue from other sources and in other modes. 
Nevertheless, | do not complain; nor would I countenance any 
movement to alter this arrangement of representation. It is the 
original bargain, the compact; let it stand; let the advantage of 
it be fully enjoyed. ‘The Union itself is too full of benefit to be 
hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis. I go for 
the Constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is. But I am 
resolved not to submit in silence to accusations, either against 
myself individually or against the North, wholly unfounded and 
unjust; accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade 
the constitutional compact, and to extend the power of the 
government over the internal laws and domestic condition of the 
States. All such accusations, wherever and whenever made, all 


i Be 


282 SECOND, SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


insinuations of the existence of any such purposes, I know and 
feel to be groundless and injurious. And we must confide in 
Southern gentlemen themselves; we must trust to those whose 
integrity of heart and magnanimity of feeling will lead them to 
a desire to maintain and disseminate truth, and who possess 
the means of its diffusion with the Southern public; we must 
leave it to them to disabuse that public of its prejudices. But 
in the mean time, for my own part, I shall continue to act 
justly, whether those towards whom justice is exercised receive 
it with candor or with contumely. 

Having had occasion to recur to the Ordinance of 1787, in 
order to defend myself against the inferences which the honor- 
able member has chosen to draw from my former observations 
on that subject, I am not willing now entirely to take leave of it 
without another remark. It need hardly be said, that that paper 
expresses just sentiments on the great subject of civil and relig- 
ious liberty. Such sentiments were common, and abound in all 
our state papers of that day. But this Ordinance did that 
which was not so common, and which is not even now univer- 
sal; that is, it set forth and declared it to be a high and binding 
duty of government itself to support schools and advance the 
means of education, on the plain reason that religion, morality, 
and knowledge are necessary to good government, and to the 
happiness of mankind. One observation further. ‘The impor- 
tant provision incorporated into the Constitution of the United 
States, and into several of those of the States, and recently, as 
we have seen, adopted into the reformed constitution of Virginia, 
restraining legislative power in questions of private right, and 
from impairing the obligation of contracts, is first introduced 
and established, as far as I am informed, as matter of express 
written constitutional law, in this Ordinance of 1787. And 
I must add, also, in regard to the author of the Ordinance, who 
has not had the happiness to attract the gentleman’s notice 
heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, that he was chair: 
man of that select committee of the old Congress, whose report 
first expressed the strong sense of that body, that the old Con- 
federation was not adequate to the exigencies of the country, and 
recommended to the States to send delegates to the convention 
which formed the present Constitution.* 


* See Note A, at the end of the speech. 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 283 


An attempt has been made to transfer from the North to the 
South the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the North- 
western Territory. ‘The journal, without argument or comment, 
refutes such attempts. The cession by Virginia was made in 
March, 1784. On the 19th of April following, a committee, 
consisting of Messrs. Jefferson, Chase, and Howell, reported a 
plan for a temporary government of the territory, in which was 
this article: “ That, after the year 1800, there shall be neither 
slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, oth- 
erwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall 
have been convicted.” Mr. Spaight of North Carolina moved 
to strike out this paragraph. ‘The question was put, according 
to the form then practised, “Shall these words stand as a 
part of the plan?” New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, 
seven States, voted in the afhrmative; Maryland, Virginia, 
and South Carolina, in the negative. North Carolina was di- 
vided. As the consent of nine States was necessary, the words 
could not stand, and were struck out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson 
voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues. 

In March of the next year (1785), Mr. King of Massachu- 
setts, seconded by Mr. Ellery of Rhode Island, proposed the 
formerly rejected article, with this addition: “ And that this reg- 
ulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamen- 
tal principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original 
States, and each of the States described in the resolve.’ On 
this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security, 
the eight Northern States at that time voted affirmatively, and 
the four Southern States negatively. The votes of nine States 
were not yet obtained, and thus the provision was again re- 
jected by the Southern States. The perseverance of the North 
held out, and two years afterwards the object was attained. It 
is no derogation from the credit, whatever that may be, of draw- 
ing the Ordinance, that its principles had before been prepared 
and discussed, in the form of resolutions. If one should reason 
in that way, what would become of the distinguished honor of 
the author of the Declaration of Independence? ‘There is not 
a sentiment in that paper which had not been voted and resolved 
in the assemblies, and other popular bodies in the country, over 
and over again. 


284 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


But the honorable member has now found out that this gen- 
tleman, Mr. Dane, was a member of the Hartford Convention. 
However uninformed the honorable member may be of characters 
and occurrences at the North, it would seem that he has at his 
elbow, on this occasion, some high-minded and lofty spirit, some 
magnanimous and true-hearted monitor, possessing. the means 
of local knowledge, and ready to supply the honorable member 
with every thing, down even to forgotten and moth-eaten two- 
penny pamphlets, which may be used to the disadvantage of his 
own country. But as to the Hartford Convention, Sir, allow me 
to say, that the proceedings of that body seem now to be less read 
and studied in New England than farther South. They appear 
to be looked to, not in New England, but elsewhere, for the pur- 
pose of seeing how far they may serve as a precedent. But they 
will not answer the purpose, they are quite too tame. ‘The lati- 
tude in which they originated was too cold. Other conventions, 
of more recent existence, have gone a whole bar’s length beyond 
it. The learned doctors of Colleton and Abbeville have pushed 
their commentaries on the Hartford collect so far, that the orig- 
inal text-writers are thrown entirely into the shade. I have 
nothing to do, Sir, with the Hartford Convention. Its journal, 
which the gentleman has quoted, I never read. So far as the 
honorable member may discover in its proceedings a spirit in any 
degree resembling that which was avowed and justified in those 
other conventions to which I have alluded, or so far as those 
proceedings can be shown to be disloyal to the Constitution, or 
tending to disunion, so far I shall be as ready as any one to 
bestow on them reprehension and censure. 

Having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences 
of that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified,) 
that I should leave the course of this debate to follow him at 
length in those excursions, the honorable member returned, and 
attempted another object. He referred to a speech of mine in 
the other house, the same which I had occasion to allude to 
myself, the other day; and has quoted a passage or two from it, 
with a bold, though uneasy and laboring, air of confidence, as 
if he had detected in me an inconsistency. Judging from the 
gentleman’s manner, a stranger to the course of the debate 
and to the point in discussion would have imagined, from so 
triumphant a tone, that the honorable member was about to 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 285 


overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction. Any one who 
heard him, and who had not heard what I had, in fact, previ- 
ously said, must have thought me routed and discomfited, as the 
gentleman had promised. Sir, a breath blows all this triumph 
away. ‘There is not the slightest difference in the purport 
of my remarks on the two occasions. What I said here on 
Wednesday is in exact accordance with the opinion expressed 
by me in the other house in 1825. Though the gentleman had 
the metaphysics of Hudibras, though he were able 


*¢ to sever and divide 
A hair ’twixt north and northwest side,”’ 


he yet could not insert his metaphysical scissors between the 
fair reading of my remarks in 1825, and what I said here last 
week. There is not only no contradiction, no difference, but, in 
truth, too exact a similarity, both in thought and language, to 
be entirely in just taste. I had myself quoted the same speech; 
had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before me; and much 
of what I said was little more than a repetition from it. In 
order to make finishing work with this alleged contradiction, 
permit me to recur to the origin of this debate, and review its 
course. This seems expedient, and may be done as well now as 
at any time. 

Well, then, its history is this. The honorable member from 
Connecticut moved a resolution, which constitutes the first 
branch of that which is now before us; that is to say, a reso- 
lution, instructing the committee on public lands to inquire into 
the expediency of limiting, for a certain period, the sales of the 
public lands, to such as have heretofore been offered for sale; 
and whether sundry offices connected with the sales of the lands 
might not be abolished without detriment to the public service. 
In the progress of the discussion which arose on this resolution, 
an honorable member from New Hampshire moved to amend 
the resolution, so as entirely to reverse its object; that is, to 
strike it all out, and insert a direction to the committee to in- 
quire into the expediency of adopting measures to hasten the 
sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys, of the lands. 

The honorable member from Maine* suggested that both 


* Mr. Sprague. 


286 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


those propositions might well enough go for consideration to the 
committee; and in this state of the question, the member from 
South Carolina addressed the Senate in his first speech. He 
rose, he said, to give us his own free thoughts on the public 
lands. I saw him rise with pleasure, and listened with expecta- 
tion, though before he concluded I was filled with surprise. 
Certainly, I was never more surprised, than to find him follow- 
ing up, to the extent he did, the sentiments and opinions which 
the gentleman from Missouri had put forth, and which it is 
known he has long entertained. 

I need not repeat at large the general topics of the honorable 
gentleman’s speech. When he said yesterday that he did not 
attack the Eastern States, he certainly must have forgotten, not 
only particular remarks, but the whole drift and tenor of his 
speech; unless he means by not attacking, that he did not com- 
mence hostilities, but that another had preceded him in the at- 
tack. He, in the first place, disapproved of the whole course of 
the government, for forty years, in regard to its disposition of 
the public lands; and then, turning northward and eastward, and 
fancying he had found a cause for alleged narrowness and nig- 
gardliness in the “accursed policy ” of the tariff, to which he rep- 
resented the people of New England as wedded, he went on for 
a full hour with remarks, the whole scope of which was to ex- 
hibit the results of this policy, in feelings and in measures un- 
favorable to the West. I thought his opinions unfounded and 
erroneous, as to the general course of the government, and ven- 
tured to reply to them. 

The gentleman had remarked on the analogy of other cases, 
and quoted the conduct of European governments towards their 
own subjects settling on this continent, as in point, to show 
that we had been harsh and rigid in selling, when we should 
have given the public lands to settlers without price. I thought 
the honorable member had suffered his judgment to be betrayed 
by a false analogy; that he was struck with an appearance of 
resemblance where there was no real similitude. I think so still. 
The first settlers of North America were enterprising spirits, 
engaged in private adventure, or fleeing from tyranny at home. 
When arrived here, they were forgotten by the mother country, 
or remembered only to be oppressed. Carried away again by 
the appearance of analogy, or struck with the eloquence of the 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, 287 


passage, the honorable member yesterday observed, that the 
conduct of government towards the Western emigrants, or my 
representation of it, brought to his mind a celebrated speech in 
the British Parliament. It was, Sir, the speech of Colonel 
Barre. On the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I forget 
which, Colonel Barre had heard a member on the treasury bench 
argue, that the people of the United States, being British colo- 
nists, planted by the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence, 
and protected by the arms of England, would not grudge their 
mite to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden under 
which she groaned. ‘I'he language of Colonel Barre, in reply to 
this, was,—“ They planted by your care? Your oppression 
planted them in America. ‘They fled from your tyranny, and 
grew by your neglect of them. ‘So soon as you began to care 
for them, you showed your care by sending persons to spy out 
their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them, and 
eat out their substance.” 

And how does the honorable gentleman mean to maintain, 
that language like this is applicable to the conduct of the gov- 
ernment of the United States towards the Western emigrants, 
or to any representation given by me of that conduct? Were 
the settlers in the West driven thither by our oppression? Have 
they flourished only by our neglect of them? Has the gov- 
ernment done nothing but prey upon them, and eat out their 
substance? Sir, this fervid eloquence of the British speaker, 
just when and where it was uttered, and fit to remain an exer- 
cise for the schools, is not a little out of place, when it is brought 
thence to be applied here, to the conduct of our own country 
towards her own citizens. From America to England, it may 
be true; from Americans to their own government, it would be 
strange language. Let us leave it, to be recited and declaimed 
by our boys against a foreign nation; not introduce it here, to 
recite and declaim ourselves against our own. 

But I come to the point of the alleged contradiction. In my 
remarks on Wednesday, I contended that we could not give 
away gratuitously all the public lands; that we held them in 
trust; that the government had solemnly pledged itself to dis- 
pose of them as a common fund for the common benefit, and to 
sell and settle them as its discretion should dictate. Now, Sir, 
what contradiction does the gentleman find to this sentiment in 


288 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


the speech of 1825? He quotes me as having then said, that 
we ought not to hug these lands as a very great treasure. Very 
well, Sir, supposing me to be accurately reported in that expres- 
sion, what is the contradiction? I have not now said, that we 
should hug these lands as a favorite source of pecuniary income. 
No such thing. It is not my view. What I have said, and 
what I do say, is, that they are a common fund, to be disposed 
of for the common benefit, to be sold at low prices for the accom- 
modation of settlers, keeping the object of settling the lands as 
much in view as that of raising money from them. ‘This I say 
now, and this I have always said. Is this hugging them asa 
favorite treasure? Is there no difference between hugging and 
hoarding this fund, on the one hand, as a great treasure, and, on 
the other, of disposing of it at low prices, placing the proceeds 
in the general treasury of the Union? My opinion is, that as 
much is to be made of the land as fairly and reasonably may 
be, selling it all the while at such rates as to give the fullest effect 
to settlement. This is not giving it all away to the States, as 
the gentleman would propose; nor is it hugging the fund closely 
and tenaciously, as a favorite treasure; but it is, in my judg- 
ment, a just and wise policy, perfectly according with all the 
various duties which rest on government. So much for my con- 
tradiction. And what is it? Where is the ground of the gentle- 
man’s triumph? What inconsistency in word or doctrine has 
he been able to detect? Sir, if this be a sample of that discom- 
fiture with which the honorable gentleman threatened me, com- 
mend me to the word discomfiture for the rest of my life. 

But, after all, this is not the point of the debate; and I must 
now bring the gentleman back to what is the point. 

The real question between me and him is, Has the doctrine 
been advanced at the South or the East, that the population of 
the West should be retarded, or at least need not be hastened, 
on account of its effect to drain off the people from the Atlantic 
States? Is this doctrine, as has been alleged, of Eastern ori- 
gin? That is the question. Has the gentleman found any 
thing by which he can make good his accusation? I submit to 
the Senate, that he has entirely failed; and, as far as this debate 
has shown, the only person who has advanced such sentiments 
is a gentleman from South Carolina, and a friend of the honor- 
able member himself. The honorable gentleman has given no 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 289 


answer to this; there is none which can be given. ‘The simple 
fact, while it requires no comment to enforce it, defies all argu- 
ment to refute it. I could refer to the speeches of another 
Southern gentleman, in years before, of the same general char- 
acter, and to the same effect, as that which has been quoted; 
but I will not consume the time of the Senate by the reading 
of them. 

So then, Sir, New England is guiltless of the policy of retard- 
ing Western population, and of all envy and jealousy of the 
growth of the new States. Whatever there be of that policy in 
the country, no part of itis hers. If it has a local habitation, 
the honorable member has probably seen by this time where to 
look for it; and if it now has received a name, he has himself 
christened it. 

We approach, at length, Sir, to a more important part of the 
honorable gentleman’s observations. Since it does not accord 
with my views of justice and policy to give away the public 
lands altogether, as a mere matter of gratuity, I am asked by 
the honorable gentleman on what ground it is that I consent to 
vote them away in particular instances. How, he inquires, do 
I reconcile with these professed sentiments, my support of meas- 
ures appropriating portions of the lands to particular roads, par- 
ticular canals, particular rivers, and particular institutions of 
education in the West? ‘This leads, Sir, to the real and wide 
difference in political opinion between the honorable gentleman 
and myself. On my part, I look upon all these objects as con- 
nected with the common good, fairly embraced in its object and 
its terms; he, on the contrary, deems them all, if good at all, 
only local good. ‘This is our difference. The interrogatory 
which he proceeded to put, at once explains this difference. 
“ What interest,” asks he, “has South Carolina in a canal in 
Ohio?” Sir, this very question is full of significance. It de- 
velops the gentleman’s whole political system; and its answer 
expounds mine. Here we differ. I look upon a road over the 
Alleghanies, a canal round the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or 
railway from the Atlantic to the Western waters, as being an 
object large and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the 
common benefit. The gentleman thinks otherwise, and this 
is the key to his construction of the powers of the govern- 
ment. He may well ask what interest has South Carolina in a 

VOL. III. 25 


290 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


canal in Ohio. On his system, it is true, she has no interest. 
On that system, Ohio and Carolina are different governments, 
and different countries; connected here, it is true, by some slight 
and ill-defined bond of union, but in all main respects separate 
and diverse. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in 
a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. The gentleman, therefore, - 
only follows out his own principles; he does no more than arrive 
at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines; he only an- 
nounces the true results of that creed which he has adopted 
himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus de- 
clares that South Carolina has no interest m a public work in 
Ohio. 

Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England do not reason 
thus. Our notion of things is entirely different. We look upon 
the States, not as separated, but as united. We love to dwell 
on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so 
much promoted, and the common renown which it has so great- 
ly contributed to acquire. In our contemplation, Carolina and 
Ohio are parts of the same country; States, united under the 
same general government, having interests, common, associated, 
intermingled. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the 
constitutional power of this government, we look upon the 
States as one. We do not impose geographical limits to our 
patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and moun- 
tains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which 
public improvements do not benefit us. We who come here, 
as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and self- 
ish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to re- 
gard with an equal eye the good of the whole, in whatever is 
within our powers of legislation. Sir, if a railroad or canal, 
beginning in South Carolina and ending in South Carolina, 
appeared to me to be of national importance and national mag- 
nitude, believing, as I do, that the power of government extends 
to the encouragement of works of that description, if I were to 
stand up here and ask, What interest has Massachusetts in a 
railroad in South Carolina? I should not be willing to face my 
constituents. ‘These same narrow-minded men would tell me, 
that they had sent me to act for the whole country, and that 
one who possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or 
feeling, one who was not large enough, both in mind and in 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 291 


heart, to embrace the whole, was not fit to be intrusted with the 
interest of any part. 

Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of the government 
by unjustifiable construction, nor to exercise any not within a 
fair interpretation. But when it is believed that a power does 
exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the general 
benefit of the whole. So far as respects the exercise of such a 
power, the States are one. It was the very object of the Con- 
stitution to create unity of interests to the extent of the powers 
of the general government. In war and peace we are one; in 
commerce, one; because the authority of the general government 
reaches to war and peace, and to the regulation of commerce. 
I have never seen any more difficulty in erecting lighthouses on 
the lakes, than on the ocean; in improving the harbors of inland 
seas, than if they were within the ebb and flow of the tide; or 
in removing obstructions in the vast streams of the West, more 
than in any work to facilitate commerce on the Atlantic coast. 
If there be any power for one, there is power also for the other; 
and they are all and equally for the common good of the 
country. 

There are other objects, apparently more local, or the benefit 
of which is less general, towards which, nevertheless, I have con- 
curred with others, to give aid by donations of land. It is pro- 
posed to construct a road, in or through one of the new States, 
in which this government possesses large quantities of land. 
Have the United States no right, or, as a great and untaxed 
proprietor, are they under no obligation to contribute to an 
object thus calculated to promote the common good of all the 
proprietors, themselves included? And even with respect to 
education, which is the extreme case, let the question be con- 
sidered. In the first place, as we have seen, it was made mat- 
ter of compact with these States, that they should do their part 
to promote education. In the next place, our whole system of 
land laws proceeds on the idea that education is for the common 
good; because, in every division, a certain portion is uniformly 
reserved and appropriated for the use of schools. And, finally, 
have not these new States singularly strong claims, founded on 
the ground already stated, that the government is a great un- 
taxed proprietor, in the ownership of the soil? It is a consider- 
ation of great importance, that probably there is in no part of 


. 292 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


the country, or of the world, so great call for the means of edu- 
cation, as in these new States, owing to the vast numbers of 
persons within those ages in which education and instruction 
are usually received, if received at all. This is the natural con- 
sequence of recency of settlement and rapid increase. The 
census of these States shows how great a proportion of the 
whole population occupies the classes between infancy and 
manhood. ‘These are the wide fields, and here is the deep and 
quick soil for the seeds of knowledge and virtue; and this is the 
favored season, the very spring-time for sowing them. Let them 
be disseminated without stint. Let them be scattered with a 
bountiful hand, broadcast. Whatever the government can fairly 
do towards these objects, in my opinion, ought to be done. 
These, Sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, on which my 
votes for grants of lands for particular objects rest; while I 
maintain, at the same time, that it is all a common fund, for 
the common benefit. And reasons like these, | presume, have 
influenced the votes of other gentlemen from New England. 
Those who have a different view of the powers of the govern- 
ment, of course, come to different conclusions, on these, as on 
other questions. J observed, when speaking on this subject be- 
fore, that if we looked to any measure, whether for a road, a 
canal, or any thing else, intended for the improvement of the 
West, it would be found that, if the New England ayes were 
struck out of the lists of votes, the Southern noes would always 
have rejected the measure. ‘The truth of this has not been 
denied, and cannot be denied. In stating this, I thought it 
just to ascribe it to the constitutional scruples of the South, 
rather than to any other less favorable or less charitable cause. 
But no sooner had I done this, than the honorable gentleman 
asks if I reproach him and his friends with their constitutional 
scruples. Sir, I reproach nobody. I stated a fact, and gave the 
most respectful reason for it that occurred to me. ‘The gentle- 
man cannot deny the fact; he may, if he choose, disclaim the 
reason. It is not long since I had occasion, in presenting a 
petition from his own State, to account for its being intrusted 
to my hands, by saying, that the constitutional opinions of the 
gentleman and his worthy colleague prevented them from sup- 
porting it. Sir, did I state this as matter of reproach? Far 
from it. Did I attempt to find any other cause than an honest 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOl’S RESOLUTION. 293 


one for these scruples? Sir, I did not. It did not become me 
to doubt or to insinuate that the gentleman had either changed 
his sentiments, or that he had made up a set of constitutipnal 
opinions accommodated to any particular combination of polit- 
ical occurrences. Had I done so, I should have felt, that, while 
I was entitled to little credit in thus questioning other people’s 
motives, I justified the whole world in suspecting my own. But 
how has the gentleman returned this respect for others’ opin- 
ions? His own candor and justice, how have they been ex- 
hibited towards the motives of others, while he has been at so 
much pains to maintain, what nobody has disputed, the purity 
of his own? Why, Sir, he has asked when, and how, and why 
New England votes were found going for measures favorable to 
the West. He has demanded to be informed whether all this 
did not begin in 1825, and while the election of President was 
still pending. | 

Sir, to these questions retort would be justified; and it is both 
cogent and at hand. Nevertheless, I will answer the inquiry, 
not by retort, but by facts. I will tell the gentleman when, and 
how, and why New England has supported measures favorable 
to the West. I have already referred to the early history of the 
government, to the first acquisition of the lands, to the original 
laws for disposing of them, and for governing the territories 
where they lie; and have shown the influence of New England 
men and New England principles in all these leading measures. 
I should not be pardoned were I to go over that ground again. 
Coming to more recent times, and to measures of a less general 
character, I have endeavored to prove that every thing of this 
kind, designed for Western improvement, has depended on the 
votes of New England; all this is true beyond the power of 
contradiction. And now, Sir, there are two measures to which 
I will refer, not so ancient as to belong to the early history of 
the public lands, and not so recent as to be on this side of the 
period when the gentleman charitably imagines a new direction 
may have been given to New England feeling and New Eng- 
land votes. ‘These measures, and the New England votes in 
support of them, may be taken as samples and specimens of all 
the rest. 

In 1820 (observe, Mr. President, in 1820) the people of the 
West besought Congress for a reduction in the price of lands. 

20 * 


- 294 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


In favor of that reduction, New England, with a delegation of 
forty members in the other house, gave thirty-three votes, and one 
only against it. The four Southern States, with more than fifty 
members, gave thirty-two votes for it, and seven against it. 
Again, in 1821 (observe again, Sir, the time), the law passed for 
the relief of the purchasers of the public lands. This was a 
measure of vital importance to the West, and more especially to 
the Southwest. It authorized the relinquishment of contracts 
for lands which had been entered into at high prices, and a re- 
duction in other cases of not less than thirty-seven and a half per 
cent. on the purchase-money. Many millions of dollars, six or 
seven, I believe, probably much more, were relinquished by this 
law. On this bill, New England, with her forty members, gave 
more affirmative votes than the four Southern States, with their 
fifty-two or fifty-three members. These two are far the most 
important general measures respecting the public lands which 
have been adopted within the last twenty years. They took 
place in 1820 and 1821. That is the time when. 

As to the manner how, the gentleman already sees that it was 
by voting in solid column for the required relief; and, lastly, as 
to the cause why, I tell the gentleman it was because the mem- 
bers from New England thought the measures just and salutary ; 
because they entertained towards the West neither envy, hatred, 
nor malice; because they deemed it becoming them, as just and 
enlightened public men, to meet the exigency which had arisen 
in the West with the appropriate measure of relief; because 
they felt it due to their own characters, and the characters of 
their New England predecessors in this government, to act to- 
wards the new States in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, mag- 
nanimous policy. So much, Sir, for the cause why; and I hope 
that by this time, Sir, the honorable gentleman is satisfied; if 
not, I do not know when, or how, or why he ever will be. 

Having recurred to these two important measures, in answer 
to the gentleman’s inquiries, I must now beg permission to 
go back to a period somewhat earlier, for the purpose of still 
further showing how much, or rather how little, reason there is 
for the gentleman’s insinuation that political hopes or fears, or 
party associations, were the grounds of these New England 
votes. And after what has been said, I hope it may be forgiven 
me if I allude to some political opinions and votes of my own, 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 295 


of very little public importance certainly, but which, from the 
time at which they were given and expressed, may pass for good 
witnesses on this occasion. 

This government, Mr. President, from its origin to the peace 
of 1815, had been too much engrossed with various other im- 
portant concerns to be able to turn its thoughts inward, and look 
to the development of its vast internal resources. In the early 
part of President Washington’s administration, it was fully oe- 
eupied with completing its own organization, providing for the 
public debt, defending the frontiers, and maintaining domestic 
peace. Before the termination of that administration, the fires 
of the French Revolution blazed forth, as from a new-opened 
voleano, and the whole breadth of the ocean did not secure us 
from its effects. ‘The smoke and the cinders reached us, though 
not the burning lava. Difficult and agitating questions, embar- 
rassing to government and dividing public opinion, sprung out 
of the new state of our foreign relations, and were succeeded by 
others, and yet again by others, equally embarrassing and 
equally exciting division and discord, through the long series of 
twenty years, till they finally issued in the war with England. 
Down to the close of that war, no distinct, marked, and deliber- 
ate attention had been given, or could have been given, to the 
internal condition of the country, its capacities of improvement, 
or the constitutional power of the government in regard to ob- 
jects connected with such improvement. 

The peace, Mr. President, brought about an entirely new and 
a most interesting state of things; it opened to us other pros- 
pects and suggested other duties. We ourselves were changed, 
and the whole world was changed. The pacification of Europe, 
after June, 1815, assumed a firm and permanent aspect. The 
nations evidently manifested that they were disposed for peace. 
Some agitation of the waves might be expected, even after the 
storm had subsided, but the tendency was, strongly and rapidly, 
towards settled repose. 

It so happened, Sir, that Iwas at that time a member of Con- 
gress, and, like others, naturally turned my thoughts to the con- 
templation of the recently altered condition of the country and 
of the world. It appeared plainly enough to me, as well as to 
wiser and more experienced men, that the policy of the govern- 
ment would naturally take a start in a new direction; because 


296 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


new directions would necessarily be given to the pursuits and 
occupations of the people. We had pushed our commerce far 
and fast, under the advantage of a neutral flag. But there were 
now no longer flags, either neutral or belligerent. The harvest 
of neutrality had been great, but we had gathered it all. With 
the peace of Europe, it was obvious there would spring up in 
her circle of nations a revived and invigorated spirit of trade, and 
a new activity in all the business and objects of civilized life. 
Hereafter, our commercial gains were to be earned only by suc- 
cess in a close and intense competition. Other nations would 
produce for themselves, and carry for themselves, and manufac- 
ture for themselves, to the full extent of their abilities. The 
crops of our plains would no longer sustain European armies, 
nor our ships longer supply those whom war had rendered un- 
able to supply themselves. It was obvious, that, under these 
circumstances, the country would begin to survey itself, and to 
estimate its own capacity of improvement. | 

_ And this improvement, — how was it to be accomplished, and 
who was to accomplish it? We were ten or twelve millions of 
people, spread over almost half a world. We were more than 
twenty States, some stretching along the same seaboard, some 
along the same line of inland frontier, and others on opposite 
banks of the same vast rivers. ‘Two considerations at once pre- 
sented themselves with great force, in looking at this state of 
things. One was, that that great branch of improvement which 
consisted in furnishing new facilities of intercourse necessarily 
ran into different States in every leading instance, and would 
benefit the citizens of all such States. No one State, therefore, 
in such cases, would assume the whole expense, nor was the 
cooperation of several States to be expected. ‘Take the instance 
of the Delaware breakwater. It will cost several millions of 
money. Would Pennsylvania alone ever have constructed it? 
Certainly never, while this Union lasts, because it is not for her 
sole benefit. Would Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware 
have united to accomplish it at their joint expense? Certainly 
not, for the same reason. It could not be done, therefore, but 
by the general government. ‘The same may be said of the large 
inland undertakings, except that, in them, government, instead 
of bearing the whole expense, codperates with others who bear a 
part. ‘The other consideration is, that the United States have the 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 997 


means. ‘They enjoy the revenues derived from commerce, and 
the States have no abundant and easy sources of public in- 
come. ‘The custom-houses fill the general treasury, while the 
States have scanty resources, except by resort to heavy direct 
taxes. 

Under this view of things, I thought it necessary to settle, at 
least for myself, some definite notions with respect to the powers 
of the government in regard to internal affairs. It may not sa- 
vor too much of self-commendation to remark, that, with this 
object, I considered the Constitution, its judicial construction, its 
contemporaneous exposition, and the whole history of the legis- 
lation of Congress under it; and I arrived at the conclusion, that 
government had power to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in 
their accomplishment, which are now commonly spoken of as 
INTERNAL Improvements. ‘That conclusion, Sir, may have been 
right, or it may have been wrong. Iam not about to argue the 
grounds of it at large. I say only, that it was adopted and 
acted on even so early asin 1816. Yes, Mr. President, I made 
up my opinion, and determined on my intended course of polit- 
ical conduct, on these subjects, in the Fourteenth Congress, in 
1816. And now, Mr. President, I have further to say, that I 
made up these opinions, and entered on this course of political 
conduct, Teucro duce.* Yes, Sir, I pursued in all this a South 
Carolina track on the doctrines of internal improvement. South 
Carolina, as she was then represented in the other house, set 
forth in 1816 under a fresh and leading breeze, and I was among 
the followers. But if my leader sees new lights and turns a 
sharp corner, unless I see new lights also, I keep straight on in 
the same path. I repeat, that leading gentlemen from South 
Carolina were first and foremost in behalf of the doctrines of 
internal improvements,’ when those doctrines came first to be 
considered and acted upon in Congress. ‘The debate on the 
bank question, on the tariff of 1816, and on the direct tax, will 
show who was who, and what was what, at that time. 

The tariff of 1816, (one of the plain cases of oppression and 
usurpation, from which, if the government does not recede, indi- 
vidual States may justly secede from the government,) is, Sir, in 
truth, a South Carolina tariff, supported by South Carolina 


* Mr. Calhoun, when this speech was made, was President of the Senate, and 
Vice-President of the United States. 


298 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


votes. But for those votes, it could not have passed in the form 
in which it did pass; whereas, if it had depended on Massachu- 
setts votes, it would have been lost. Does not the honorable 
gentleman well know all this? There are certainly those who 
do, full well, know it all. Ido not say this to reproach South 
Carolina. I only state the fact; and I think it will appear to be 
true, that among the earliest and boldest advocates of the tariff, 
as a measure of protection, and on the express ground of protec- 
tion, were leading gentlemen of South Carolina in Congress. 
I did not then, and cannot now, understand their language in 
any other sense. While this tariff of 1816 was under discus- 
sion in the House of Representatives, an honorable gentleman 
from Georgia, now of this house,* moved to reduce the proposed 
duty on cotton. He failed, by four votes, South Carolina giving 
three votes (enough to have turned the scale) against his motion. 
The act, Sir, then passed, and received on its passage the sup- 
port of a majority of the Representatives of South Carolina 
present and voting. This act is the first in the order of those 
now denounced as plain usurpations. We see it daily in the 
list, by the side of those of 1824 and 1828, as a case of manifest 
oppression, justifying disunion. J put it home to the honorable 
member from South Carolina, that his own State was not only 
“art and part” in this measure, but the causa causans. With- 
out her aid, this seminal principle of mischief, this root of Upas, 
could not have been planted. I have already said, and it is true, 
that this act proceeded on the ground of protection. It inter- 
fered directly with existing interests of great value and amount. 
It cut up the Calcutta cotton trade by the roots, but it passed, 
nevertheless, and it passed on the principle of protecting manu- 
factures, on the principle against free trade, on the principle 
opposed to that which lets us alone.t 

Such, Mr. President, were the opinions of important and lead- 
ing gentlemen from South Carolina, on the subject of internal 
improvement, in 1816. I-went out of Congress the next year, 
and, returning again in 1823, thought I found South Carolina 
where I had left her. I really supposed that all things remained 
as they were, and that the South Carolina doctrine of internal 
improvements would be defended by the same eloquent voices, 


* Mr. Forsyth. + See Note B, at the end of the speech. 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 299 


and the same strong arms, as formerly. In the lapse of these 
six years, it is true, political associations had assumed a new 
aspect and new divisions. <A strong party had arisen in the 
South hostile to the doctrine of internal improvements.  Anti- 
consolidation was the flag under which this party fought; and 
its supporters inveighed against internal improvements, much 
after the manner in which the honorable gentleman has now 
inveighed against them, as part and parcel of the system of con- 
solidation. Whether this party arose in South Carolina itself, 
or in the neighborhood, is more than I know. I think the latter 
However that may have been, there were those found in South 
Carolina ready to make war upon it, and who did make intrepid 
war upon it. Names being regarded as things in such contro- 
versies, they bestowed on the anti-improvement gentlemen the 
appellation of Radicals. Yes, Sir, the appellation of Radicals, as 
a term of distinction applicable and applied to those who de- 
nied the liberal doctrines of internal improvement, originated, 
according to the best of my recollection, somewhere between 
North Carolina and Georgia. Well, Sir, these mischievous Rad- 
icals were to be put down, and the strong arm of South Caro- 
lina was stretched out to put them down. About this time 
I returned to Congress. ‘The battle with the Radicals had been 
fought, and our South Carolina champions of the doctrines of 
internal improvement had nobly maintained their ground, and 
were understood to have achieved a victory. We looked upon 
them as conquerors. ‘They had driven back the enemy with dis- 
comfiture, a thing, by the way, Sir, which is not always per- 
formed when it is promised. A gentleman to whom I have 
already referred in this debate had come into Congress, during 
my absence from it, from South Carolina, and had brought with 
him a high reputation for ability. He came from a school with 
which we had been acquainted, et noscitur a sociis. I hold in 
my hand, Sir, a printed speech of this distinguished gentleman," 
“on Internat Improvements,” delivered about the period to 
which I now refer, and printed with a few introductory remarks 
upon consolidation ; in which, Sir, I think he quite consolidated 
the arguments of his opponents, the Radicals, if to crush be to 
consolidate. I give you a short but significant quotation from 


* Mr. McDuffie. 


300 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


these remarks. He is speaking of a pamphlet, then recently. 
published, entitled “ Consolidation”; and having alluded to the 
question of renewing the charter of the former Bank of the 
United States, he says: — 


‘¢ Moreover, in the early history of parties, and when Mr. Crawford 
advocated a renewal of the old charter, it was considered a Federal 
measure ; which internal improvement never was, as this author errone- 
ously states. ‘This latter measure originated in the administration of 
Mr. Jefferson, with the appropriation for the Cumberland Road ; and was 
first proposed, as a system, by Mr. Calhoun, and carried through the 
House of Representatives by a large majority of the Republicans, in- 
cluding almost every one of the leading men who carried us through the 
late war.” 


So, then, internal improvement is not one of the Federal here- 
sies. One paragraph more, Sir: — 


‘‘ The author in question, not content with denouncing as Federalists, 
General Jackson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun, and the majority of the 
South Carolina delegation in Congress, modestly extends the denuncia- 
tion to Mr. Monroe and the whole Republican party. Here are his 
words: —‘* During the administration of Mr. Monroe much has passed 
which the Republican party would be glad to approve if they could!! 
But the principal feature, and that which has chiefly elicited these ob- 
servations, is the renewal of the System oF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.’ 
Now this measure was adopted by a vote of 115 to 86 of a Republican 
Congress, and sanctioned by a Republican President. Who, then, is this 
author, who assumes the high prerogative of denouncing, in the name 
of the Republican party, the Republican administration of the country ? 
A denunciation including within its sweep Calhoun, Lowndes, and 
Cheves, men who will be regarded as the brightest ornaments of South 
Carolina, and the strongest pillars of the Republican party, as long as 
the late war shall be remembered, and talents and patriotism shall be 
regarded as the proper objects of the admiration and gratitude of a free 
people !!” 


Such are the opinions, Sir, which were maintained by South 
Carolina gentlemen, in the House of Representatives, on the 
subject of internal improvements, when J took my seat there 
as a member from Massachusetts in 1823. But this is not all. 
We had a bill before us, and passed it in that house, entitled, 
“ An Act to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates 
upon the subject of roads and canals.” It authorized the Pres- 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 301 


ident to cause surveys and estimates to be made of the routes 
of such roads and canals as he might deem of national ‘mpor- 
tance in a commercial or military point of view, or for the 
transportation of the mail, and appropriated thirty thousand 
dollars out of the treasury to defray the expense. ‘his act, 
though preliminary in its nature, covered the whole ground. It 
took for granted the complete power of internal improvement, 
as far as any of its advocates had ever contended for it. Having 
passed the other house, the bill came up to the Senate, and was 
here considered and debated in April, 1824. The honorable 
member from South Carolina was a member of the Senate at 
that time. While the bill was under consideration here, a mo- 
tion was made to add the following proviso: —“ Provided, 
That nothing herein contained shall be construed to affirm or 
admit a power in Congress, on their own authority, to make 
roads or canals within any of the States of the Union.’ The 
yeas and nays were taken on this proviso, and the honorable 
member voted in the negative! ‘The proviso failed. 

A motion was then made to add this proviso, viz.: —“ Pro- 
vided, 'That the faith of the United States is hereby pledged, 
that no money shall ever be expended for roads or canals, ex- 
cept it shall be among the several States, and in the same pro- 
portion as direct taxes are laid and assessed by the provisions 
of the Constitution.” The honorable member voted against 
this proviso also, and it failed. The bill was then put on its 
passage, and the honorable member voted for it, and it passed, 
and became a law. 

Now, it strikes me, Sir, that there is no maintaining these votes, 
but upon the power of internal improvement, in its broadest 
sense. In truth, these bills for surveys and estimates have always 
been considered as test questions; they show who is for and who 
against internal improvement. This law itself went the whole 
length, and assumed the full and complete power. The gentle- 
man’s votes sustained that power, in every form in which the 
various propositions to amend presented it. He went for the 
entire and unrestrained authority, without consulting the States, 
and without agreeing to any proportionate distribution. And 
now suffer me to remind you, Mr. President, that it is this very 
same power, thus sanctioned, in every form, by the gentleman’s 
own opinion, which is so plain and manifest a usurpation, that 

VOL. III. 26 


302 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


the State of South Carolina is supposed to be justified in res 
fusing submission to any laws carrying the power into effect. 
Truly, Sir, is not this a little too hard? May we not crave 
some mercy, under favor and protection of the gentleman’s own 
authority? Admitting that a road, or a canal, must be written 
down flat usurpation as was ever committed, may we find no 
mitigation in our respect for his place, and his vote, as one that 
knows the law ? 

The tariff, which South Carolina had an efficient hand in es- 
tablishing, in 1816, and this asserted power of internal improve- 
ment, advanced by her in the same year, and, as we have seen, 
approved and sanctioned by her Representatives in 1824, these 
two measures are the great grounds on which she is now 
thought to be justified in breaking up the Union, if she sees fit 
to break it up! 

I may now safely say, I think, that we have had the authority 
of leading and distinguished gentlemen from South Carolina 
in support of the doctrine of internal improvement. I repeat, 
that, up to 1824, I for one followed South Carolina; but when 
that star, in its ascension, veered off in an unexpected direction, 
I relied on its light no longer. 


Here the Vice-President said, ‘“‘ Does the chair understand the gentle- 
man from Massachusetts to say that the person now occupying the chair 
of the Senate has changed his opinions on the subject of internal im- 
provements ? ” 


From nothing ever said to me, Sir, have I had reason to know 
of any change in the opinions of the person filling the chair 
of the Senate. If such change has taken place, I regret it. I 
speak generally of the State of South Carolina. Individuals 
we know there are, who hold opinions favorable to the power. 
An application for its exercise, in behalf of a public work in 
South Carolina itself, is now pending, I believe, in the other 
house, presented by members from that State. 

I have thus, Sir, perhaps not without some tediousness of 
detail, shown, if I am in error on the subject of internal im- 
provement, how, and in what company, I fell into that error. If 
I am wrong, it is apparent who misled me. 

I go to other remarks of the honorable member; and I have 
to complain of an entire misapprehension of what I said on the 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 303 


subject of the national debt, though I can hardly perceive how 
any one could misunderstand me. What I said was, not that I 
wished to put off the payment of the debt, but, on the contrary, 
that I had always voted for every measure for its reduction, as 
uniformly as the gentleman himself. He seems to claim the ex- 
clusive merit of a disposition to reduce the public charge. Ido 
not allow it to him. As a debt, I was, I am for paying it, be- 
cause it is a charge on our finances, and on the industry of the 
country. But I observed, that I thought I perceived a morbid 
fervor on that subject, an excessive anxiety to pay off the debt, 
not so much because it is a debt simply, as because, while it 
lasts, it furnishes one objection to disunion. It is, while it con- 
tinues, a tie of common interest. I did not impute such motives 
to the honorable member himself, but that there is such a feeling 
in existence I have not a particle of doubt. The most I said 
was, that if one effect of the debt was to strengthen our Union, 
that effect itself was not regretted by me, however much others 
might regret it. The gentleman has not seen how to reply to 
this, otherwise than by supposing me to have advanced the doc- 
trine that a national debt is a national blessing. Others, I must 
hope, will find much less difficulty in understanding me. _ I dis- 
tinctly and pointedly cautioned the honorable member not to 
understand me as expressing an opinion favorable to the contin- 
uance of the debt. I repeated this caution, and repeated it more 
than once; but it was thrown away. 

On yet another point, I was still more unaccountably misun- 
derstood. The gentleman had harangued against “ consolida- 
tion.” 1 told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consoli- 
_ dation to which I was attached, and that was the consolidation 
of our Union; that this was precisely that consolidation to 
which I feared others were not attached, and that such consoli- 
dation was the very end of the Constitution, the leading object, 
as they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept 
in view. I turned to their communication,” and read their very 
words, “the consolidation of the Union,’ and expressed my 
devotion to this sort of consolidation. I said, in terms, that I 
wished not in the slightest degree to augment the powers of this 
government; that my object was to preserve, not to enlarge; 


* The letter of the Federal Convention to the Congress of the Confederation, 
transmitting the plan of the Constitution. 


304 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


and that by consolidating the Union I understood no more than 
the strengthening of the Union, and perpetuating it. Having 
been thus explicit, having thus read from the printed book the 
precise words which | adopted, as expressing my own senti- 
ments, it passes comprehension how any man could understand 
me as contending for an extension of the powers of the gov- 
ernment, or for consolidation in that odious sense in which it 
means an accumulation, in the federal government, of the pow- 
ers properly belonging to the States. 

I repeat, Sir, that, in adopting the sentiment of the framers 
of the Constitution, I read their language audibly, and word for 
word; and I pointed out the distinction, just as fully’as I have 
now done, between the consolidation of the Union and that 
other obnoxious consolidation which I disclaimed. And yet the 
honorable member misunderstood me. The gentleman had said 
that he wished for no fixed revenue,—nota shilling. If bya 
word he could convert the Capitol into gold, he would not do it. 
Why all this fear of revenue? Why, Sir, because, as the gen- 
tleman told us, it tends to consolidation. Now this can mean 
neither more nor less than that a common revenue is a common 
interest, and that all common interests tend to preserve the 
union of the States. I confess I like that tendency; if the 
gentleman dislikes it, he is right in deprecating a shilling of 
fixed revenue. So much, Sir, for consolidation. 

As well as I recollect the course of his remarks, the honorable 
gentleman next recurred to the subject of the tariff. He did not 
doubt the word must be of unpleasant sound to me, and proceed- 
ed, with an effort neither new nor attended with new success, to 
involve me and my votes in inconsistency and contradiction. I 
am happy the honorable gentleman has furnished me an oppor- 
tunity of a timely remark or two on that subject. I was glad 
he approached it, for it is a question I enter upon without fear 
from any body. ‘The strenuous toil of the gentleman has been 
to raise an inconsistency between my dissent to the tariff in 
1824, and my vote in 1828. It is labor lost. He pays unde- 
served compliment to my speech in 1824; but this is to raise 
me high, that my fall, as he would have it, in 1828, may be more 
signal. Sir, there was no fall. Between the ground I stood on 
in 1824 and that I took in 1828, there was not only no preci- 
pice, but no declivity. It was a change of position to meet new 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 305 


circumstances, but on the same level. A plain tale explains the 
whole matter. In 1816 I had not acquiesced in the tariff, then 
supported by South Carolina. To some parts of it, especially, I 
felt and expressed great repugnance. I held the same opinions 
in 1820, at the meeting in Faneuil Hall, to which the gentleman 
has alluded. I said then, and say now, that, as an original 
question, the authority of Congress to exercise the revenue pow- 
er, with direct reference to the protection of manufactures, is a 
questionable authority, far more questionable, in my judgment, 
than the power of internal improvements. I must confess, Sir, 
that in one respect some impression has been made on my opin- 
ions lately. Mr. Madison’s publication has put the power ina 
very strong light. He has placed it, I must acknowledge, upon 
grounds of construction and argument which seem impregnable. 
But even if the power were doubtful, on the face of the Consti- 
tution itself, it had been assumed and asserted in the first reve- 
nue law ever passed under that same Constitution; and on this 
ground, as a matter settled by contemporaneous practice, I had 
refrained from expressing the opinion that the tariff laws tran- 
scended constitutional limits, as the gentleman supposes. What 
I did say at Faneuil Hall, as far as I now remember, was, that 
this was originally matter of doubtful construction. The gen- 
tleman himself, I suppose, thinks there is no doubt about it, and 
that the laws are plainly against the Constitution. Mr. Madi- 
son’s letters, already referred to, contain, in my judgment, by far 
the most able exposition extant of this part of the Constitution. 
He has satisfied me, so far as the practice of the government 
had left it an open question. 

With a great majority of the Representatives of Massachu- 
setts, I voted against the tariff of 1824. My reasons were then 
given, and I will not now repeat them. But, notwithstanding 
our dissent, the great States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
‘and Kentucky went for the bill, in almost unbroken column, 
and it passed. Congress and the President sanctioned it, and it 
became the law of the land. What, then, were we todo? Our 
only option was, either to fall in with this settled course of pub- 
lic policy, and accommodate ourselves to it as well as we could, 
or to embrace the South Carolina doctrine, and talk of nullify- 
ing the statute by State interference. 

This last alternative did not suit our principles, and of course 

26 * 


306 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


we adopted the former. In 1827, the subject came again before 
Congress, on a proposition to afford some relief to the branch of 
wool and woollens. We looked upon the system of protection 
as being fixed and settled. The law of 1824 remained. It had 
gone into full operation, and, in regard to some objects intended 
by it, perhaps most of them, had produced all its expected 
effects. No man proposed to repeal it; no man attempted to 
renew the general contest on its principle. But, owing to sub- 
sequent and unforeseen occurrences, the benefit intended by it 
to wool and woollen fabrics had not been realized. Events not 
known here when the law passed had taken place, which de- 
feated its object in that particular respect. A measure was 
accordingly brought forward to meet this precise deficiency, to 
remedy this particular defect. It was limited to wool and wool- 
lens. Was ever any thing more reasonable? If the policy of 
the tariff laws had become established in principle, as the per- 
manent policy of the government, should they not be revised 
and amended, and made equal, like other laws, as exigencies 
should arise, or justice require? Because we had doubted about 
adopting the system, were we to refuse to cure its manifest 
defects, after it had been adopted, and when no one attempted 
its repeal? And this, Sir, is the inconsistency so much bruited. 
I had voted against the tariff of 1824, but it passed; and in 
1827 and 1828, I voted to amend it, in a point essential to the 
interest of my constituents. Where is the inconsistency ? 
Could I do otherwise? Sir, does political consistency consist 
in always giving negative votes? Does it require of a pub- 
lic man to refuse to concur in amending laws, because they 
passed against his consent? Having voted against the tariff 
originally, does consistency demand that I should do all in 
my power to maintain an unequal tariff, burdensome to my 
own constituents in many respects, favorable in none? ‘To 
consistency of that sort, I lay no claim. And there is an- 
other sort to which I lay as little, and that is, a kind of con- 
sistency by which persons feel themselves as much bound to 
oppose a proposition after it has become a law of the land as 
before. 

The bill of 1827, limited, as I have said, to the single object 
in which the tariff of 1824 had manifestly failed in its effect, 
passed the House of Representatives, but was lost here. We 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, 307 


had then the act of 1828. I need not recur to the history of a 
measure so recent. Its enemies spiced it with whatsoever they 
thought would render it distasteful; its friends took it, drugged 
as it was. Vast amounts of property, many millions, had been 
invested in manufactures, under the inducements of the act of 
1824. Events called loudly, as I thought, for further regulation 
to secure the degree of protection intended by that act. I was 
disposed to vote for such regulation, and desired nothing more; 
but certainly was not to be bantered out of my purpose by a 
threatened augmentation of duty on molasses, put into the bill 
for the avowed purpose of making it obnoxious. ‘The vote may 
have been right or wrong, wise or unwise; but it is little less 
than absurd to allege against it an inconsistency with opposition 
to the former law. ; 

Sir, as to the general subject of the tariff, I have little now to 
say. Another opportunity may be presented. I remarked the 
other day, that this policy did not begin with us in New Eng- 
land; and yet, Sir, New England is charged with vehemence 
as being favorable, or charged with equal vehemence as being 
unfavorable, to the tariff policy, just as best suits the time, place, 
and occasion for making some charge against her. The credu- 
lity of the public has been put to its extreme capacity of false 
impression relative to her conduct in this particular. ‘Through 
all the South, during the late contest, it was New England pol- 
icy and a New England administration that were afflicting the 
country with a tariff beyond all endurance; while on the other 
side of the Alleghanies even the act of 1828 itself, the very sub- 
limated essence of oppression, according to Southern opinions, 
was pronounced to be one of those blessings for which the 
West was indebted to the “ generous South.” 

With large investments in manufacturing establishments, and 
many and various interests connected with and dependent on 
them, it is not to be expected that New England, any more 
than other portions of the country, will now consent to any 
measure destructive or highly dangerous. ‘The duty of the gov- 
ernment, at the present moment, would seem to be to preserve, 
not to destroy; to maintain the position which it has assumed ; 
and, for one, I shall feel it an indispensable obligation to hoid 
it steady, as far as in my power, to that degree of protection 
which it has undertaken to bestow. No more of the tariff 


308 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


Professing to be provoked by what he chose to considera 
charge made by me against South Carolina, the honorable mem- 
ber, Mr. President, has taken up a new crusade against New 
England. Leaving altogether the subject of the public lands, in 
which his success, perhaps, had been neither distinguished nor 
satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the topic of the tariff, he 
sallied forth in a general assault on the opinions, politics, and 
parties of New England, as they have been exhibited in the last 
thirty years. This is natural. The “narrow policy” of the pub- 
lic lands had proved a legal settlement in South Carolina, and 
was not to be removed. The “accursed policy” of the tariff, 
also, had established the fact of its birth and parentage in the 
same State. No wonder, therefore, the gentleman wished to 
carry the war, as he expressed it, into the enemy’s country. 
Prudently willing to quit these subjects, he was, doubtless, de- 
sirous of fastening on others, which could not be transferred 
south of Mason and Dixon’s line. The politics of New England 
became his theme; and it was in this part of his speech, I think, 
that he menaced me with such sore discomfiture. Discomfit- 
ure! Why, Sir, when he attacks any thing which I maintain, 
and overthrows it, when he turns the right or left of any posi- 
tion which I take up, when he drives me from any ground I 
choose to occupy, he may then talk of discomfiture, but not till 
that distant day. What has he done? Has he maintained his 
own charges? Has he proved what he alleged? MHas he sus- 
tained himself in his attack on the government, and on the his- 
tory of the North, in the matter of the public lands? Has he 
disproved a fact, refuted a proposition, weakened an argument, 
maintained by me? Has he come within beat of drum of any 
position of mine? O, no; but he has “carried the war into 
the enemy’s country”! Carried the war into the enemy’s coun- 
try! Yes, Sir, and what sort of a war has he made of it? 
Why, Sir, he has stretched a drag-net over the whole surface of 
perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy paragraphs, and 
fuming popular addresses; over whatever the pulpit in its mo- 
ments of alarm, the press in its heats, and parties in their extray- 
agance, have severally thrown off in times of general excitement 
and violence. He has thus swept together a mass of such things 
as, but that they are now old and cold, the public health would 
have required him rather to leave in their state of dispersion. 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 309 


For a good long hour or two, we had the unbroken pleasure of 
listening to the honorable member, while he recited with his 
usual grace and spirit, and with evident high gusto, speeches, 
pamphlets, addresses, and all the e¢ ceteras of the political press, 
such as warm heads produce in warm times; and such as it 
would be “discomfiture” indeed for any one, whose taste did 
not delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. ‘This 
is his war. ‘This it is to carry war into the enemy’s country. It 
is in an invasion of this sort, that he flatters himself with the ex- 
pectation of gaining laurels fit to adorn a Senator’s brow ! 

Mr. President, I shall not, it will not, I trust, be expected that 
I should, either now or at any time, separate this farrago into 
parts, and answer and examine its components. I shall barely 
bestow upon it all a general remark or two. In the run of forty 
years, Sir, under this Constitution, we have experienced sundry 
successive violent party contests. Party arose, indeed, with the 
Constitution itself, and, in some form or other, has attended it 
through the greater part of its history. Whether any other con- 
stitution than the old Articles of Confederation was desirable, 
was itself a question on which parties divided; if a new consti- 
tution were framed, what powers should be given to it was 
another question; and when it had been formed, what was, in 
fact, the just extent of the powers actually conferred was a 
third. Parties, as we know, existed under the first administra- 
tion, as distinctly marked as those which have manifested them- 
selves at any subsequent period. ‘The contest immediately pre- 
ceding the political change in 1801, and that, again, which 
existed at the commencement of the late war, are other in- 
stances of party excitement, of something more than usual 
strength and intensity. In all these conflicts there was, no 
doubt, much of violence on both and all sides. It would be 
impossible, if one had a fancy for such employment, to adjust 
the relative quantum of violence between these contending par- 
ties. ‘There was enough in each, as must always be expected 
in popular governments. With a great deal of popular and 
decorous discussion, there was mingled a great deal, also, of 
declamation, virulence, crimination, and abuse. In regard to 
any party, probably, at one of the leading epochs in the history 
of parties, enough may be found to make out another inflamed 
exhibition, not unlike that with which the honorable member 


310 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


has edified us. For myself, Sir, I shall not rake among the rub- 
bish of bygone times, to see what I can find, or whether I cannot 
find something by which I can fix a blot on the escutcheon of 
any State, any party, or any part of the country. General 
Washington’s administration was steadily and zealously main- 
tained, as we all know, by New England. It was violently 
opposed elsewhere. We know in what quarter he had the most 
earnest, constant, and persevering support, in all his great and 
leading measures. We know where his private and personal 
character was held in the highest degree of attachment and 
veneration; and we know, too, where his measures were op- 
posed, his services slighted, and his character vilified. We know, 
or we might know, if we turned to the journals, who expressed 
respect, gratitude, and regret, when he retired from the chief 
magistracy, and who refused to express either respect, gratitude, 
or regret. I shall not open those journals. Publications more 
abusive or scurrilous never saw the light, than were sent forth 
against Washington, and all his leading measures, from presses 
south of New England. But I shall not look them up... I em- 
ploy no scavengers, no one is in attendance on me, furnishing 
such means of retaliation; and if there were, with an ass’s 
load of them, with a bulk as huge as that which the gentleman 
himself has produced, I would not touch one of them. I see 
enough of the violence of our own times, to be no way anxious 
to rescue from forgetfulness the extravagances of times past. 
Besides, what is all this to the present purpose? It has noth- 
ing to do with the public lands, in regard to which the attack 
was begun; and it has nothing to do with those sentiments and 
opinions which, I have thought, tend to disunion, and all of 
which the honorable member seems to have adopted himself, 
and undertaken to defend. New England ,has, at times, so 
argues the gentleman, held opinions as dangerous as those 
which he now holds. Suppose this were so; why should he 
therefore abuse New England? If he finds himself counte- 
nanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he relies on these 
acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, their authors with reproach? 
But, Sir, if, in the course of forty years, there have been undue 
effervescences of party in New England, has the same thing 
happened nowhere else? Party animosity and party outrage, 
not in New England, but elsewhere, denounced President Wash- 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 311 


ington, not only as a Federalist, but as a Tory, a British agent, a 
man who in his high office sanctioned corruption. But does the 
honorable member suppose, if I had a tender here who should 
put such an effusion of wickedness and folly into ‘my hand, 
that I would stand up and read it against the South? Parties 
ran into great heats again in 1799 and 1800. What was said, 
Sir, or rather what was not said, in those years, against John 
Adams, one of the committee that drafted the Declaration of 
Independence, and its admitted ablest defender on the floor of 
Congress? If the gentleman wishes to increase his stores of 
party abuse and frothy violence, if he has a determined procliv- 
ity to such pursuits, there are treasures of that sort south of the 
Potomac, much to his taste, yet untouched. I shall not touch 
them. 

The parties which divided the country at the commencement 
of the late war were violent. But then there was violence on 
both sides, and violence in every State. Minorities and majori- 
ties were equally violent. ‘There was no more violence against 
the war in New England, than in other States; nor any more 
appearance of violence, except that, owing to a dense population, 
greater facility of assembling, and more presses, there may have 
been more in quantity spoken and printed there than in some 
other places. In the article of sermons, too, New England is 
somewhat more abundant than South Carolina; and for that 
reason the chance of finding here and there an exceptionable 
one may be greater. I hope, too, there are more good ones. 
Opposition may have been more formidable in New England, 
‘as it embraced a larger portion of the whole population; but it 
was no more unrestrained in principle, or violent in manner. 
The minorities dealt quite as harshly with their own State gov- 
ernments as the majorities dealt with the administration here. 
There were presses on both sides, popular meetings on both 
sides, ay, and pulpits on both sides also. ‘The gentleman’s pur- 
veyors have only catered for him among the productions of one 
side. I certainly shall not supply the deficiency by furnishing 
samples of the other. I leave to him, and to them, the whole 
concern. 

It is enough for me to say, that if, in any part of this their 
grateful occupation, if, in all their researches, they find any 
thing in the history of Massachusetts, or New England, or in 


312 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


the proceedings of any legislative or other public body, disloyal to 
the Union, speaking slightingly of its value, proposing to break 
it up, or recommending non-intercourse with neighboring States, 
on account of difterence of political opinion, then, Sir, I give 
them all up to the honorable gentleman’s unrestrained rebuke ; 
expecting, however, that he will extend his buffetings in like 
manner fo all similar proceedings, wherever else found. 

The gentleman, Sir, has spoken at large of former parties, 
now no longer in being, by their received appellations, and has 
undertaken to instruct us, not only in the knowledge of their 
principles, but of their respective pedigrees also. He has as- 
cended to their origin, and run out their genealogies. With most 
exemplary modesty, he speaks of the party to which he professes 
to have himself belonged, as the true Pure, the only honest, pa- 
triotic party, derived by regular descent, from father to son, from 
the time of the virtuous Romans! Spreading before us the fam- 
ily tree of political parties, he takes especial care to show him- 
self snugly perched on a popular bough! He is wakeful to the 
expediency of adopting such rules of descent as shall bring him 
in, to the exclusion of others, as an heir to the inheritance of all 
public virtue and all true political principle. His party and his 
opinions are sure to be orthodox; heterodoxy is confined to his 
opponents. He spoke, Sir, of the Federalists, and I thought I 
saw some eyes begin to open and stare a little, when he ven- 
tured on that ground. I expected he would draw his sketches 
rather lightly, when he looked on the circle round him, and espe- 
cially if he should cast his thoughts to the high places out of the 
Senate. Nevertheless, he went back to Rome, ad annum urbis 
condite, and found the fathers of the Federalists in the primeyal 
aristocrats of that renowned city! He traced the flow of Fed- 
eral blood down through successive ages and centuries, till he 
brought it into the veins of the American Tories, of whom, by 
the way, there were twenty in the Carolinas for one in Massachu- 
setts. From ,the Tories he followed it to the Federalists; and, 
as the Federal party was broken up, and there was no possibility 
of transmitting it further on this side the Atlantic, he seems to 
have discovered that it has gone off collaterally, though against 
all the canons of descent, into the Ultras of France, and finally 
become extinguished, like exploded gas, among the adherents of 
Don Miguel! This, Sir, is an abstract of the gentleman’s his- 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 313 


tory of Federalism. Iam not about to controvert it. It is not, 
at present, worth the pains of refutation; because, Sir, if at this 
day any one feels the sin of Federalism lying heavily on his con- 
science, he can easily procure remission. He may even obtain 
an indulgence, if he be desirous of repeating the same transgres- 
sion. Itis an affair of no difficulty to get into this same right 
line of patriotic descent. A man now-a-days is at liberty to 
choose his political parentage. He may elect his own father. 
Federalist or not, he may, if he choose, claim to belong to the 
favored stock, and his claim will be allowed. He may carry 
back his pretensions just as far as the honorable gentleman him- 
self; nay, he may make himself out the honorable gentleman’s 
cousin, and prove, satisfactorily, that he is descended from the 
same political great-grandfather. All this is allowable. We all 
know a process, Sir, by which the whole Essex Junto could, in 
one hour, be all washed white from their ancient Federalism, 
and come out, every one of them, original Democrats, dyed in 
the wool! Some of them have actually undergone the opera- 
tion, and they say it is quite easy. The only inconvenience it 
occasions, as they tell us, is a slight tendency of the blood to the 
face, a soft suffusion, which, however, is very transient, since 
nothing is said by those whom they join calculated to deepen 
the red on the cheek, but a prudent silence is observed in re- 
gard to all the past. Indeed, Sir, some smiles of approbation 
have been bestowed, and some crumbs of comfort have fallen, 
not a thousand miles from the door of the Hartford Convention 
itself. And if the author of the Ordinance of 1787 possessed 
the other requisite qualifications, there is no knowing, notwith- 
standing his Federalism, to what heights of favor he might not 
yet attain. 

Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, such as it is, into New 
England, the honorable gentleman all along professes to be acting 
on the defensive. He chooses to consider me as having assailed 
South Carolina, and insists that he comes forth only as her cham- 
pion, and in her defence. Sir, I do not admit that I made any 
attack whatever on South Carolina. Nothing like it. The hon- 
orable member, in his first speech, expressed opinions, in regard 
to revenue and some other topics, which I heard both with pain 
and with surprise. I told the gentleman | was aware that such 
sentiments were entertained owt of the government, but had 

VOL. III. 27 


314 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


not expected to find them advanced in it; that I knew there were 
persons in the South who speak of our Union with indifference 
or doubt,.taking pains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing 
of its benefits; that the honorable member himself, I was sure, 
could never be one of these; and I regretted the expression of 
such opinions as he had avowed, because I thought their obvi- 
ous tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespect to the 
Union, and to impair its strength. This, Sir, is the sum and 
substance of all I said on the subject. And this constitutes the 
attack which called on the chivalry of the gentleman, in his own 
opinion, to harry us with such a foray among the party pam- 
phlets and party proceedings of Massachusetts! If he means 
that I spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of the ebullitions 
of individuals in South Carolina, it is true. Butif he means 
that I assailed the character of the State, her honor, or patri- 
otism, that I reflected on her history or her conduct, he has 
not the slightest ground for any such assumption. I did not 
even refer, I think, in my observations, to any collection of in- 
dividuals. I said nothing of the recent conventions. I spoke 
in the most guarded and careful manner, and only expressed my 
regret for the publication of opinions, which I presumed the 
honorable member disapproved as much as myself. In this, it 
seems, I was mistaken. I do not remember that the gentleman 
has disclaimed any sentiment, or any opinion, of a supposed 
anti-union tendency, which on all or any of the recent occasions 
has been expressed. The whole drift of his speech has been 
rather to prove, that, in divers times and manners, sentiments 
equally liable to my objection have been avowed in New Eng- 
land. And one would suppose that his object, in this reference 
to Massachusetts, was to find a precedent to justify proceedings 
in the South, were it not for the reproach and contumely with 
which he labors, all along, to load these his own chosen prece- 
dents. By way of defending South Carolina from what he chooses 
to think an attack on her, he first quotes the example of Massa- 
chusetts, and then denounces that example in good set terms. 
This twofold purpose, not very consistent, one would think, with 
itself, was exhibited more than once in the course of his speech. 
He referred, for instance, to the Hartford Convention. Did he 
do this for authority, or for a topic of reproach? Apparently for 
both, for he told us that he should find no fault with the mere 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 315 


fact of holding such a convention, and considering and discuss- 
ing such questions as he supposes were then and there dis- 
cussed ; but what rendered it obnoxious was its being held at the 
time, and under the circumstances of the country then existing. 
We were in a war, he said, and the country needed all our aid; 
the hand of government required to be strengthened, not weak- 
ened; and patriotism should have postponed such proceedings to 
another day. ‘he thing itself, then, is a precedent; the time 
and manner of it only, a subject of censure. 

Now, Sir, I go much further, on this point, than the honora- 
ble member. Supposing, as the gentleman seems to do, that the 
Hartford Convention assembled for any such purpose as break- 
ing up the Union, because they thought unconstitutional laws 
had been passed, or to consult on that subject, or to calculate 
the value of the Union; supposing this to be their purpose, or 
‘any part of it, then I say the meeting itself was disloyal, and 
was obnoxious to censure, whether held in time of peace or time 
of war, or under whatever circumstances. The material ques- 
tion is the object. Is dissolution the object? If it be, external 
circumstances may make it a more or less aggravated case, but 
cannot affect the principle. I do not hold, therefore, Sir, that 
the Hartford Convention was pardonable, even to the extent of 
the gentleman’s admission, if its objects were really such as have 
been imputed to it. Sir, there never was a time, under any de- 
gree of excitement, in which the Hartford Convention, or any oth- 
er convention, could have maintained itself one moment in New 
England, if assembled for any such purpose as the gentleman 
says would have been an allowable purpose. ‘To hold conven- 
tions to decide constitutional law! ‘To try the binding validity 
of statutes by votes in a convention! Sir, the Hartford Con- 
vention, I presume, would not desire that the honorable gen- 
tleman should be their defender or advocate, if he puts their 
case upon such untenable and extravagant grounds. 

Then, Sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these re- 
cently promulgated South Carolina opinions. And certainly 
he need have none; for his own sentiments, as now advanced, 
and advanced on reflection, as far as I have been able to compre- 
hend them, go the full length of all these opinions. I propose, 
Sir, to say something on these, and to consider how far they are 
just and constitutional. Before doing that, however, let me ob- 


316 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


serve that the eulogium pronounced by the honorable gentleman 
on the character of the State of South Carolina, for her Revolu- 
tionary and other merits, meets my hearty concurrence. I shall 
not acknowledge that the honorable member goes before me in 
regard for whatever of distinguished talent, or distinguished char- 
acter, South Carolina has produced. I claim part of the honor, 
I partake in the pride, of her great names. I claim them for 
countrymen, one and all, the Laurenses, the Rutledges, the 
Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Marions, Americans all, whose 
fame is no more to be hemmed in by State lines, than their 
talents and patriotism were capable of being circumscribed with- 
in the same narrow limits. In their day and generation, they 
served and honored the country, and the whole country; and 
their renown is of the treasures of the whole country. Him whose 
honored name the gentleman himself bears, — does he esteem 
me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for 
his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light 
of Massachusetts, instead of South Carolina? Sir, does he sup- 
pose it in his power to exhibit a Carolina name so bright, as to 
produce envy in my bosom? No, Sir, increased gratification 
and delight, rather. I thank God, that, if Iam gifted with little 
of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, I have 
yet none, as I trust, of that other spirit, which would drag angels 
down. When I shall be found, Sir, in my place here in the Sen- 
ate, or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens 
to spring up beyond the little limits of my own State or neigh- 
borhood; when I refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause, 
the homage due to American talent, to elevated patriotism, to 
sincere devotion to liberty and the country; or, if I see an un- 
common endowment of Heaven, if I see extraordinary capacity 
and virtue, in any son of the South, and if, moved by local prej- 
udice or gangrened by State jealousy, I get up here to abate 
the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame, may 
my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! 

Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in 
Rélvoshinig remembrance of the past; let me remind you that, in 
early Ertl no States cherished greater harmony, both of princi- 
ple and feeling, than Massachusetts and South Carolina. Would 
to God that harmony might again return! Shoulder to shoul- 
der they went through the Revolution, hand in hand they stood 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 317 


round the administration of Washington, and felt his own great 
arm lean on them for support. Unkind feeling, if it exist, alien- 
ation, and distrust are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of 
false principles since sown. ‘They are weeds, the seeds of which 
that same great arm never scattered. 

Mr. President, I shall enter on no encomium upon Massachu- 
setts; she needs none. There she is. Behold her, and judge for 
yourselves. ‘There is her history; the world knows it by heart. 
The past, at least, is secure. ‘There is Boston, and Concord, 
and Lexington, and Bunker Hill; and there they will remain for 
ever. ‘The bones of her sons, falling in the great struggle for 
Independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every State from 
New England to Georgia; and there they will lie for ever. And 
Sir, where American Liberty raised its first voice, and where its 
youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the 
strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit. If discord 
and disunion shall wound it, if party strife and blind ambition 
shall hawk at and tear it, if folly and madness, if uneasiness 
under salutary and necessary restraint, shall succeed in sepa- 
rating it from that Union, by which alone its existence is made 
sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which 
its infancy was rocked; it will stretch forth its arm with what- 
ever of vigor it may still retain over the friends who gather 
round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proud- 
est monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its 
origin. 


There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the 
most grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on 
me by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what | con- 
ceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which 
we are here assembled. I might well have desired that so 
weighty a task should have fallen into other and abler hands. I 
could have wished that it should have been executed by those 
whose character and experience give weight and influence to 
their opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine.’ But, 
Sir, I have met the occasion, not sought it; and I shall proceed 
to state my own sentiments, without challenging for them any 
particular regard, with studied plainness, and as much precision 
as possible. 

ac° 


318 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina 
to maintain, that it is a right of the State legislatures to inter- 
fere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its 
constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. 

I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing 
under the Constitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the 
ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revo- 
lution. 

I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the 
States, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exer- 
cise of power by the general government, of checking it, and of 
compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its 
powers. 

I understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of 
judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not 
lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of 
it; but that, on the contrary, the States may lawfully decide for 
themselves, and each State for itself, whether, in a given case, 
the act of the general government transcends its power. 

I understand him to insist, that, if the exigency of the case, in 
the opinion of any State government, require it, such State gov- 
ernment may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of 
the general government which it deems plainly and palpably 
unconstitutional. 

This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the 
South Carolina doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. 
I propose to consider it, and compare it with the Constitution. 
Allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that I call this the 
South Carolina doctrine only because the gentleman himself has 
so denominated it. Ido not feel at liberty to say that South 
Carolina, as a State, has ever advanced these sentiments. I 
hope she has not, and never may. ‘That a great majority of her 
people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. ‘hata 
majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, conscientious- 
ly believe these laws unconstitutional, may probably also be 
true. But that any majority holds to the right of direct State 
interference at State discretion, the right of nullifying acts of 
Congress by acts of State legislation, is more than I know, 
and what I shall be slow to believe. 

That there are individuals besides the honorable gentleman 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 319 


who do maintain these opinions, is quite certain. I recollect 
the recent expression of a sentiment, which circumstances at- 
tending its utterance and publication justify us in supposing 
was not unpremeditated. “The sovereignty of the State, — 
never to be controlled, construed, or decided on, but by her own 
feelings of honorable justice.” 


Mr. Hayne here rose and said, that, for the purpose of being clearly 
understood, he would state that his proposition was in the words of the 
Virginia resolution, as follows : — 

“That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it 
views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the 
compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense 
and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther 
valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that com- 
pact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exer- 
cise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who 
are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, 
for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their 
respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to 
them.” 

Mr. Webster resumed : — 


I am quite aware, Mr. President, of the existence of the reso- 
lution which the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and 
that he relies on it as his authority. I know the source, too, 
from which it is understood to have proceeded. I need not say 
that I have much respect for the constitutional opinions of Mr. 
Madison; they would weigh greatly with me always. But be- 
fore the authority of his opinion be vouched for the gentleman’s 
proposition, it will be proper to consider what is the fair inter- 
pretation of that resolution, to which Mr. Madison is understood 
to have given his sanction. As the gentleman construes it, it is 
an authority for him. Possibly, he may not have adopted the 
right construction. ‘That resolution declares, that, in the case of 
the dangerous exercise of powers not granted by the general gov- 
ernment, the States may interpose to arrest the progress of the 
evil. But how interpose, and what does this declaration pur- 
port? Does it mean no more than that there may be extreme 
cases, in which the people, in any mode of assembling, may re- 
sist usurpation, and relieve themselves from a tyrannical govern- 
ment? No ore will deny this. Such resistance is not only 


320 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


acknowledged to be just in America, but in England also 
Blackstone admits as much, in the theory, and practice, too, of 
the English constitution. We, Sir, who oppose the Carolina 
doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if they choose, throw 
off any government when it becomes oppressive and intolerable, 
and erect a better in its stead. We all know that civil institu- 
tions are established for the public benefit, and that when they 
cease to answer the ends of their existence they may be changed. 
But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be 
that, which, for the sake of distinction, we may call the right of - 
revolution. I understand the gentleman to maintain, that, with- 
out revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a 
remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of 
the general government lies in a direct appeal to the interfer- 
ence of the State governments. 


Mr. Hayne here rose and said: He did not contend for the mere 
right of revolution, but for the right of constitutional resistance. What 
he maintained was, that in case of a plain, palpable violation of the Con- 
stitution by the general government, a State may interpose; and that 
this interposition is constitutional. 

Mr. Webster resumed : — 


So, Sir, I understood the gentleman, and am happy to find 
that I did not misunderstand him. What he contends for is, 
that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the 
Constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen and 
sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, 
of the States, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. The in- 
herent right in the people to reform their government I do not 
deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist uncon- 
stitutional laws, without overturning the government. It is no 
doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. 
The great question is, Whose prerogative is it to decide on the 
constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that, 
the main debate hinges. The proposition, that, in case of a 
supposed violation of the Constitution by Congress, the States 
have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the law of 
Congress, is the proposition of the gentleman. I do not admit 
it. If the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the 
right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only 
what all agree to. But I cannot conceive that there can be a 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 321 


middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly 
pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, 
which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. I say, the right 
of a State to annul a law of Congress cannot be maintained, but 
on the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist oppres- 
sion; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit 
that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution 
and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to 
when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit, that, 
under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any 
mode in which a State government, as a member of the Union, 
can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, 
by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever. 
This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government 
and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the 
creature of the State legislatures, or the creature of the people? 
If the government of the United States be the agent of the State 
governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree 
in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, 
then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or re- 
form it. It is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the 
honorable gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of 
maintaining, not only that this general government is the crea- 
ture of the States, but that it is the creature of each of the 
States severally, so that each may assert the power for itself of 
determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. 
It is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills 
and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. ‘This absurd- 
ity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the 
origin of this government and its true character. It is, Sir, the 
people’s Constitution, the people’s government, made for the 
people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. ‘The 
people of the United States have declared that this Constitution 
shall be the supreme law. We must elther admit the proposi- 
tion, or dispute their authority. The States are, unquestionably, 
sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not aflected by this su- 
preme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies, 
however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So 
far as the people have given power to the general government, 
so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government 


ss fp SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


holds of the people, and not of the State governments We are 
all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general 
government and the State governments derive their authority 
from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be 
called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the 
other general and residuary. ‘The national government pos- 
sesses those powers which it can be shown the people have con- 
ferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs to the State 
governments, or to the people themselves. So far as the people 
have restrained State sovereignty, by the expression of their will, 
in the Constitution of the United States, so far, it must be ad- 
mitted, State sovereignty is effectually controlled. I do not con- 
tend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. ‘The senti- 
ment to which I have referred propounds that State sovereignty 
is only to be controlled by its own “feeling of justice”; that is 
to say, it is not to be controlled at all, for one who is to follow 
his own feelings is under no legal control. Now, however men 
may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the 
United States have chosen to impose control on State sovereign- 
ties. There are those, doubtless, who wish they had been left 
without restraint; but the Constitution has ordered the matter 
differently. ‘To make war, for instance, is an exercise of sover- 
eignty; but the Constitution declares that no State shall make 
war. ‘To coin money is another exercise of sovereign power; 
but no State is at liberty to coin money. Again, the Constitu- 
tion says that no sovereign State shall be so sovereign as to 
make a treaty. These prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a 
control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as 
of the other States, which does not arise “ from her own feelings 
of honorable justice.’ ‘The opinion referred to, therefore, is in 
defiance of the plainest provisions of the Constitution. 

There are other proceedings of public bodies which have 
already been alluded to, and to which I refer again, for the pur- 
pose of ascertaining more fully what is the length and breadth 
of that ductrine, denominated the Carolina doctrine, which the 
honorable member has now stood up on this floor to maintain. 
In one of them I find it resolved, that “the tariff of 1828, and 
every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at 
the expense of others, is contrary to the meaning and intention 
of the federal compact; and such a dangerous, palpable, and 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, Sos 


deliberate usurpation of power, by a determined majority, wield- 
ing the general government beyond the limits of its delegated 
powers, as calls upon the States which compose the suffering 
minority, in their sovereign capacity, to exercise the powers 
which, as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon them, when their 
compact is violated.” 

Observe, Sir, that this resolution holds the tariff of 1828, and 
every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry 
at the expense of another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, and 
deliberate usurpation of power, as calls upon the States, in their 
sovereign capacity, to interfere by their own authority. This 
denunciation, Mr. President, you will please to observe, includes 
our old tariff of 1816, as well as all others; because that was 
established to promote the interest of the manufacturers of cot- 
ton, to the manifest and admitted injury of the Calcutta cotton 
trade. Observe, again, that all the qualifications are here re- 
hearsed and charged upon the tariff, which are necessary to bring 
the case within the gentleman’s proposition. The tariff is a 
usurpation ; it is a dangerous usurpation; it is a palpable usur- 
pation; it is a deliberate usurpation. It is such a usurpation, 
therefore, as calls upon the States to exercise their right of inter- 
ference. Here is a case, then, within the gentleman’s principles, 
and all his qualifications of his principles. It is a case for action. 
The Constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliber- 
ately violated; and the States must interpose their own au- 
thority to arrest the law. Let us suppose the State of South 
Carolina to express this same opinion, by the voice of her legis- 
lature. That would be very imposing; but what then? Is the 
voice of one State conclusive? It so happens that, at the very 
moment when South Carolina resolves that the tariff laws are 
unconstitutional, Pennsylvania and Kentucky resolve exactly 
the reverse. They hold those laws to be both highly proper and 
strictly constitutional. And now, Sir, how does the honorable 
member propose to deal with this case? How does he re- 
lieve us from this difficulty, upon any principle of bis? His 
constructiyun gets us into it; how does he propose to get us 
out? 

In Carolina, the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation; 
Carolina, therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties. 
In Pennsylvania, it is both clearly constitutional and highly ex- 


324 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


pedient; and there the duties are to be paid. And yet we live 
under a government of uniform laws, and under a Constitution 
too, which contains an express provision, as it happens, that all 
duties shall be equal in all the States. Does not this approach 
absurdity ? 

If there be no power to settle such questions, independent of 
either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? 
Are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old Confeder- 
ation? 

It is too plain to be argued. Four-and-twenty interpreters of 
constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and 
none with authority to bind any body else, and this constitutional 
law the only bond of their union! What is such a state of 
things but a mere connection during pleasure, or, to use the 
phraseology of the times, during feeling? And that feeling, 
too, not the feeling of the people, who established the Constitu- 
tion, but the feeling of the State governments. 

In another of the South Carolina addresses, having premised 
that the crisis requires “all the concentrated energy of passion,” 
an attitude of open resistance to the laws of the Union is advised. 
Open resistance to the laws, then, is the constitutional remedy, 
the conservative power of the State, which the South Carolina 
doctrines teach for the redress of political evils, real or imagi- 
nary. And its authors further say, that, appealing with confi- 
dence to the Constitution itself, to justify their opinions, they 
cannot consent to try their accuracy by the courts of justice. In 
one sense, indeed, Sir, this is assuming an attitude of open 
resistance in favor of liberty. But what sort of liberty? The 
liberty of establishing their own opinions, in defiance of the 
opinions of all others; the liberty of judging and of deciding 
exclusively themselves, in a matter in which others have as 
much right to judge and decide as they; the liberty of placing 
their own opinions above the judgment of all others, above the 
laws, and above the Constitution. This is their liberty, and 
this is the fair result of the proposition contended for by the 
honorable gentleman. Or, it may be more properly said, it is 
identical with it, rather than a result from it. 

In the same publication we find the following : —“ Previously 
to our Revolution, when the arm of oppression was stretched 
over New England, where did our Northern brethren meet with 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, O20 


a braver sympathy than that which sprung from the bosoms of 
Carolinians? We had no extortion, no oppression, no collision 
with the king’s ministers, no navigation interests springing up, 
in envious rivalry of England.” 

This seems extraordinary language. South Carolina no col- 
lision with the king’s ministers in 1775! No extortion! No 
oppression! But, Sir, it is also most significant language. 
Does any man doubt the purpose for which it was penned? 
Can any one fail to see that it was designed to raise in the 
reader’s mind the question, whether, af this time, —that is to 
say, in 1828,— South Carolina has any collision with the king’s 
ministers, any oppression, or extortion, to fear from England? 
whether, in short, England is not as naturally the friend of 
South Carolina as New England, with her navigation interests 
springing up in envious rivalry of England? 

Is it not strange, Sir, that an intelligent man in South Caro- 
lina, in 1828, should thus labor to prove that, in 1775, there was 
no hostility, no cause of war, between South Carolina and Eng- 
land? ‘That she had no occasion, in reference to her own inter- 
est, or from a regard to her own welfare, to take up arms in the 
Revolutionary contest? Can any one account for the expression 
of such strange sentiments, and their circulation through the 
State, otherwise than by supposing the object to be what I have 
already intimated, to raise the question, if they had no “ collis- 
ion” (mark the expression) with the ministers of King George 
the Third, in 1775, what collision have they, in 1828, with the 
ministers of King George the Fourth? What is there now in 
the existing state of things, to separate Carolina from Old, more, 
or rather, than from New England? 

Resolutions, Sir, have been recently passed by the legislature 
of South Carolina. I need not refer to them; they go no far- 
ther than the honorable gentleman himself has gone, and I hope 
not so far. I content myself, therefore, with debating the matter 
with him. 

And now, Sir, what I have first to say on this subject is, 
that at no time, and under no circumstances, has New Eng- 
land, or any State in New England, or any respectable body 
of persons in New England, or any public man of standing 
in New England, put forth such a doctrine as this Carolina 
doctrine. 

VOL. III. 28 


pe 6) SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


The gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to sup- 
port his own opinions by New England authority. New Eng- 
land has studied the Constitution in other schools, and under 
other teachers. She looks upon it with other regards, and deems 
more highly and reverently both of its just authority and its 
utility and excellence. ‘The history of her legislative proceed- 
ings*may be traced. ‘The ephemeral effusions of temporary bod- 
ies, called together by the excitement of the occasion, may be 
hunted up; they have been hunted up. The opinions and votes 
of her public men, in and out of Congress, may be explored. 
It will all be in vain. ‘The Carolina doctrine can derive from 
her neither countenance nor support. She rejects it now; she 
always did reject it; and till she loses her senses, she always 
will reject it. The honorable member has referred to expres- 
sions on the subject of the embargo law, made in this place, 
by an honorable and venerable gentleman,” now favoring us 
with his presence. He quotes that distinguished Senator as 
saying, that, in his judgment, the embargo law was unconsti- 
tutional, and that therefore, in his opinion, the people were not 
bound to obey it. That, Sir, is perfectly constitutional language. 
An unconstitutional law is not binding; but then it does not rest 
with a resolution or a law of a State legislature to decide whether 
an act of Congress be or be not constitutional. An unconsti- 
tutional act of Congress would not bind the people of this Dis- 
trict, although they have no legislature to interfere in their be- 
half; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of Congress 
does bind the citizens of every State, although all their legisla- 
tures should undertake to annul it by act or resolution. The 
venerable Connecticut Senator is a constitutional lawyer, of 
sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman _prac- 
tised and experienced, bred in the company of Washington, and 
holding just views upon the nature of our governments. [fle 
believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but 
what then? Who did he suppose was to decide that question ? 
The State legislatures? Certainly not. No such sentiment 
ever escaped his lips. 

Let us follow up, Sir, this New England opposition to the 
embargo laws; let us trace it, till we discern the principle which 


* Mr. Hillhouse, of Connecticut. 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, 327 


controlled and governed New England throughout the whole 
course of that opposition. We shall then see what similarity 
there is between the New England school of constitutional opin- 
ions, and this modern Carolina school. ‘The gentleman, I think, 
read a petition from some single individual addressed to the leg- 
islature of Massachusetts, asserting the Carolina doctrine; that 
is, the right of State interference to arrest the laws of the Union. 
The fate of that petition shows the sentiment of the legislature. 
Ii met no favor. The opinions of Massachusetts were very dif- 
ferent. They had been expressed in 1798, in answer to the res- 
olutions of Virginia, and she did not depart from them, nor bend 
them to the times. Misgoverned, wronged, oppressed, as she 
felt herself to be, she still held fast her integrity to the Union. 
The gentleman may find in her proceedings much evidence of 
dissatisfaction with the measures of government, and great and 
deep dislike to the embargo; all this makes the case so much 
the stronger for her; for, notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction 
and dislike, she still claimed no right to sever the bonds of 
the Union. There was heat, and there was anger in her po- 
litical feeling. Be it so; but neither her heat nor her anger 
betrayed her into infidelity to the government. The gentleman 
labors to prove that she disliked the embargo as much as South 
Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strong- 
ty. Be it so; but did she propose the Carolina remedy? did 
she threaten to interfere, by State authority, to annul the laws 
of the Union? ‘That is the question for the gentleman’s con- 
sideration. 

No doubt, Sir, a great majority of the people of New Eng- 
land conscientiously believed the embargo law of 1807 unconsti- 
tutional; as conscientiously, certainly, as the people of South 
Carolina hold that opinion of the tariff’ They reasoned thus: 
Congress has power to regulate commerce; but here is a law, 
they said, stopping all commerce, and stopping it indefinitely. 
The law is perpetual; that is, it is not limited in point of time, 
and must of course continue until it shall be repealed by some 
other law. It is as perpetual, therefore, as the law against trea- 
son or murder. Now, is this regulating commerce, or destroying 
it? Is it guiding, controlling, giving the rule to commerce, as 2 
subsisting thing, or is it putting an end to it altogether? Noth- 
ing is more certain, thar. that a majority in New England deemed 


328 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


this law a violation of the Constitution. 'The very case required 
by the gentleman to justify State interference had then arisen. 
Massachusetts believed this law to be “a deliberate, palpable, 
and dangerous exercise of a power not granted by the Constitu- 
tion.’ Deliberate it was, for it was long continued; palpable 
she thought it, as no words in the Constitution gave the power, 
and only a construction, in her opinion most violent, raised it; 
dangerous it was, since it threatened utter ruin to her most im- 
portant interests. Here, then, was a Carolina case. How did 
Massachusetts deal with it? It was, as she thought, a plain, 
manifest, palpable violation of the Constitution, and it brought 
ruin to her doors. ‘Thousands of families, and hundreds of 
thousands of individuals, were beggared by it. While she saw 
and felt all this, she saw and felt also, that, as a measure of 
national policy, it was perfectly futile; that the country was no 
way benefited by that which caused so much individual dis- 
tress; that it was efficient only for the production of evil, and 
all that evil inflicted on ‘ourselves. In such a case, under such 
circumstances, how did Massachusetts demean herself? Sir, 
‘she remonstrated, she memorialized, she addressed herself to the 
general government, not exactly “with the concentrated energy 
of passion,” but with her own strong sense, and the energy of 
sober conviction. But she did not interpose the arm of her own 
power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. Far from it. 
Her principles bound her to two things; and she followed her 
principles, lead where they might. First, to submit to every 
constitutional law of Congress, and secondly, if the constitu- 
tional validity of the law be doubted, to refer that question to 
the decision of the proper tribunals. The first. principle is vain 
and ineffectual without the second. A majority of us in New 
England believed the embargo law unconstitutional; but the 
great question was, and always will be in such cases, Who is to 
decide this? Who is to judge between the people and the goy- 
ernment? And, Sir, it is quite plain, that the Constitution of 
the United States confers on the government itself, to be exer- 
cised by its appropriate department, and under its own respon- 
sibility to the people, this power of deciding ultimately and con- 
clusively upon the just extent of its own authority. If this had 
not been done, we should not have advanced a single step be- 
yond the old Confederation. 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 329 


Being fully of opinion that the embargo law was unconstitu- 
tional, the people of New England were yet equally clear in the 
opinion, (it was a matter they did doubt upon,) that the question, 
after all, must be decided by the judicial tribunals of the United 
States. Before those tribunals, therefore, they brought the ques- 
tion. Under the provisions of the law, they had given bonds to 
millions in amount, and which were alleged to be forfeited. 
They suffered the bonds to be sued, and thus raised the ques- 
tion. In the old-fashioned way of settling disputes, they went 
to law. The case came to hearing, and solemn argument; and 
he who espoused their cause, and stood up for them against the 
validity of the embargo act, was none other than that great 
man, of whom the gentleman has made honorable mention, 
Samuel Dexter. He was then, Sir, in the fulness of his knowl- 
edge, and the maturity of his strength. He had retired from 
long and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pur- 
suit of professional duties, carrying with him all that enlarge- 
ment and expansion, all the new strength and force, which an 
acquaintance with the more general subjects discussed in the 
national councils is capable of adding to professional attain- 
ment, in a mind of true greatness and comprehension. He was 
a lawyer, and he was also a statesman. He had studied the 
Constitution, when he filled public station, that he might defend 
it; he had examined its principles that he might maintain them. 
More than all men, or at least as much as any man, he was at- 
tached to the general government and to the union of the States. 
His feelings and opinions all ran in that direction. A question 
of constitutional law, too, was, of all subjects, that one which 
was best suited to his talents and learning. Aloof from techni- 
eality, and unfettered by artificial rule, such a question gave 
opportunity for that deep and clear analysis, that mighty grasp 
of principle, which so much distinguished his higher efforts. His 
very statement was argument; his inference seemed demonstra- 
tion. The earnestness of his own conviction wrought conviction 
in others. One was convinced, and believed, and assented, be- 
cause it was gratifying, delightful, to think, and feel, and believe 
in unison with an intellect of such evident superiority. 

Mr. Dexter, Sir, such as I have described him, argued the 
New England cause. He put into his effort his whole heart, as 
well as all the powers of his understanding; for he had avowed, 

28 * 


330 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


in the most public manner, his entire concurrence with his neigh: 
bors on the point in dispute. He argued the cause; it was lost, 
and New England submitted. The established tribunals pro- 
nounced the law constitutional, and New England acquiesced. 
Now, Sir, is not this the exact opposite of the doctrine of the 
gentleman from South Carolina? According to him, instead 
of referring to the judicial tribunals, we should have broken up 
the embargo by laws of our own; we should have repealed it, 
quoad New England; for we had a strong, palpable, and oppres- 
sive case. Sir, we believed the embargo unconstitutional; but 
still that was matter of opinion, and who was to decide it? 
We thought it a clear case; but, nevertheless, we did not take 
the law into our own hands, because we did not wish to bring 
about a revolution, nor to break up the Union; for I maintain, 
that between submission to the decision of the constituted. tri- 
bunals, and revolution, or disunion, there is no middle ground; 
there is no ambiguous condition, half allegiance and half rebel- 
lion. And, Sir, how futile, how very futile it is, to admit the 
right of State interference, and then attempt to save it from the 
character of unlawful resistance, by adding terms of qualification 
to the causes and occasions, leaving all these qualifications, like 
the case itself, in the discretion of the State governments. It 
must be a clear case, it is said, a deliberate case, a palpable case, 
a dangerous case. But then the State is still left at liberty to 
decide for herself what is clear, what is deliberate, what is pal- 
pable, what is dangerous. Do adjectives and epithets ayail any 
thing? 

Sir, the human mind is so constituted, that the merits of both 
sides of a controversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to 
those who respectively espouse them; and both sides usually 
grow clearer as the controversy advances. South Carolina sees 
unconst,.utionality in the tariff; she sees oppression there also, 
and she sees danger. Pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp, 
looks at the same tariff, and sees no such thing in it; she sees 
it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. The faith of South Car. 
olina is strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees, 
but resolves, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional, oppres- 
sive, and dangerous; but Pennsylvania, not to be behind her 
neighbors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a 
confident asseveration. resolves, also, and gives to every warm 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. — 33] 


affirmative of South Carolina, a plain, downright, Pennsylvania 
negative. South Carolina, to show the strength and unity of 
her opinion, brings her assembly to a unanimity, within seven 
voices; Pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect any more 
than in others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a single vote 
Now, Sir, again, I ask the gentleman, What is to be done? Are 
these States both right? Is he bound to consider them both 
right? If not, which is in the wrong? or rather, which has the 
best right to decide? And if he, and if I, are not to know what 
the Constitution means, and what it is, till those two State leg- 
islatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its construc- 
tion, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain 
it? Iwas forcibly struck, Sir, with one reflection, as the gentle- 
man went on in his speech. He quoted Mr. Madison’s resolu- 
tions, to prove that a State may interfere, in a case of deliberate, 
palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. The 
honorable member supposes the tariff law to be such an exercise 
of power; and that consequently a case has arisen in which the 
State may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. Now it so 
happens, nevertheless, that Mr. Madison deems this same tariff 
law quite constitutional. Instead of a clear and palpable vio- 
lation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. So that, while 
they use his authority for a hypothetical case, they reject it in 
the very case before them. All this, Sir, shows the inherent 
futility, I had almost used a stronger word, of conceding this 
power of interference to the State,and then attempting to se- 
cure it from abuse by imposing qualifications of which the 
States themselves are to judge. One of two things is true; 
either the laws of the Union are beyond the discretion and _ be- 
yond the control of the States; or else we have no constitution 
of general government, and are thrust back again to the days of 
the Confederation. 

Let me here say, Sir, that if the gentleman’s doctrine had been 
received and acted upon in New England, in the times of the 
embargo and non-intercourse, we should probably not now have 
been here. The government would very likely have gone to 
pieces, and crumbled into dust. No stronger case can ever arise 
than existed under those laws; no States can ever entertain a 
clearer conviction than the New England States then enter- 
tained; and if they had been under the influence of that heresy 


332 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


of opinion, as I must call it, which the honorable member 
espouses, this Union would, in all probability, have been scat- 
tered to the four winds. I ask the gentleman, therefore, to apply 
his principles to that case; I ask him to come forth and declare, 
whether, in his opinion, the New England States would have 
been justified in interfering to break up the embargo system 
under the conscientious opinions which they held upon it? 
Had they a right to annul that law? Does he admit or deny? 
If what is thought palpably unconstitutional in South Car- 
olina justifies that State in arresting the progress of the law, 
tell me whether that which was thought palpably unconstitu- 
tional also in Massachusetts would have justified her in doing 
the same thing. Sir, I deny the whole doctrine. It has not a 
foot of ground in the Constitution to stand on. No public man 
of reputation ever advanced it in Massachusetts in the warmest 
times, or could maintain himself upon it there at any time. 

I wish now, Sir, to make a remark upon the Virginia resolu- 
tions of 1798. I cannot undertake to say how these resolutions 
were understood by those who passed them. Their language is 
not a little indefinite. In the case of the exercise by Congress 
of a dangerous power not granted to them, the resolutions as- 
sert the right, on the part of the State, to interfere and arrest the 
progress of the evil. This is susceptible of more than one inter- 
pretation. It may mean no more than that the States may in- 
terfere by complaint and remonstrance, or by proposing to the 
people an alteration of the Federal Constitution. This would 
all be quite unobjectionable. Or it may be that no more is 
meant than to assert the general right of revolution, as against 
all governments, in cases of intolerable oppression. This no 
one doubts, and this, in my opinion, is all that he who framed 
the resolutions could have meant by it; for I shall not readily 
believe that he was ever of opinion that a State, under the Con- 
stitution and in conformity with it, could, upon the ground of 
her own opinion of its unconstitutionality, however clear and 
palpable she might think the case, annul a law of Congress, so 
far as it should operate on herself, by her own legislative power. 


I must now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed right of 
the States derived? Where do they find the power to interfere 
with the laws of the Union? Sir, the opinion which the honor- 


SECOND'* SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, 333 


able gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misap- 
prehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, 
and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to bea 
popular government, erected by the people; those who admin- 
ister it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being 
amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should 
be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as 
the State governments. It is created for one purpose; the State 
governments for another. It has its own powers; they have 
theirs. ‘There is no more authority with them to arrest the 
operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the 
operation of their laws. We are here to administer a Constitu- 
tion emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by 
them to our administration. It is not the creature of the State 
governments. It is of no moment to the argument, that certain 
acts of the State legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this 
body. That is not one of their original State powers, a part of 
the sovereignty of the State. It is a duty which the people, by 
the Constitution itself, have imposed on the State legislatures ; 
and which they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if 
they had seen fit. So they have left the choice of President 
with electors; but all this does not affect the proposition that 
this whole government, President, Senate, and House of Repre- 
sentatives, is a popular government. It leaves it still all its pop- 
ular character. ‘The governor of a State (in some of the States) 
is chosen, not directly by the people, but by those who are 
chosen by the people, for the purpose of performing, among 
other duties, that of electing a governor. Is the government of 
the State, on that account, not a popular government? This 
government, Sir, is the independent offspring of the popular 
will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if 
the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into exist- 
ence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very 
purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints 
on State sovereignties. The States cannot now make war; 
they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, 
separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; 
they cannot coin money. If this Constitution, Sir, be the crea- 
ture of State legislatures, it must be admitted that it has ob- 
tained a strange control over the volitions of its creators, 


334 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


The people, then, Sir, erected this government. They gave it 
a Constitution, and in that Constitution they have enumerated 
the powers which they bestow on it. ‘They have made it a lim- 
ited government. 'They have defined its authority. ‘They have 
restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and 
all others, they declare, are reserved to the States or the people. 
But, Sir, they have not stopped here. If they had, they would 
have accomplished but half their work. No definition can be so 
clear, as to avoid possibility of doubt; no limitation so precise, 
as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, then, shall construe this 
grant of the people? Who shall interpret their will, where it 
may be supposed they have left it doubtful? With whom do 
they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the 
government? Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest man- 
ner. ‘They have left it with the government itself, in its appro- 
priate branches. Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for 
which the whole Constitution was framed and adopted, was to 
establish a government that should not be obliged to act through 
State agency, or depend on State opinion and State discretion. 
The people had had quite enough of that kind of government 
under the Confederation. Under that system, the legal action, 
the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to 
the States. Congress could only recommend; their acts were 
not of binding force, till the States had adopted and sanc- 
tioned them. Are we in that condition still? Are we yet at 
the mercy of State discretion and State construction? Sir, if 
we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitu- 
tion under which we sit. 

But, Sir, the people have wisely provided, in the Constitution 
itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions 
of constitutional law. There are in the Constitution grants of 
powers to Congress, and restrictions on these powers. ‘There 
are, also, prohibitions on the States. Some aathority must, 
therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix 
and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and 
prohibitions. ‘The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, 
and established that authority. How has it accomplished this 
ereat and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that “the Constitu- 
tion, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, 
shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution 
or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, 330 


This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy 
of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. 
The people so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes 
in conflict with the Constitution, or any law of the United 
States passed in pursuance of it. But who shall decide this 
question of interference? ‘To whom lies the last appeal? ‘This, 
Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring, “that the 
judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Consti- 
tution and laws of the United States.’ 'These two provisions 
cover the whole ground. ‘They are, in truth, the keystone of the 
arch! With these it is a government; without them it is a 
confederation. In pursuance of these clear and express provis- 
ions, Congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial 
act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing 
all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the 
Supreme Court. It then, Sir, became a government. It then 
had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it would, in 
all probability, have been now among things which are past. 
Having constituted the government, and declared its powers, 
the people have further said, that, since somebody must decide 
on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself de- 
cide; subject, always, like other popular governments, to its re- 
sponsibility to the people. And now, Sir, I repeat, how is it 
that a State legislature acquires any power to interfere? Who, 
or what, gives them the right to say to the people, “ We, who 
are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to 
decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you 
for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave 
them!” The reply would be, I think, not impertinent, — “ Who 
made you a judge over another’s servants? ‘To their own mas- 
ters they stand or fall.” 

Sir, I deny this power of State legislatures altogether. It 
cannot stand the test of examination. Gentlemen may say, 
that, in an extreme case, a State government might protect the 
people from intolerable oppression. Sir, in such a case, the peo- 
ple might protect themselves, without the aid of the State gov- 
ernments. Such a case warrants revolution. It must make, 
when it comes, a law for itself. A nullifying act of a State leg- 
islature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more law- 
ful. In maintaining these sentiments, Sir,I am but asserting 


336 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


the rights of the people. .I state what they have declared, and 
insist on their right to declare it. ‘They have chosen to repose 
this power in the general government, and | think it my duty to 
support it, like other constitutional powers. 

For myself, Sir, I do not admit the competency of South Car- 
olina, or any other State, to prescribe my constitutional duty ; 
or to settle, between me and the people, the validity of laws of 
Congress, for which I have voted. I decline her umpirage. J 
have not sworn to support the Constitution according to her 
construction of its clauses. I have not stipulated, by my oath 
of office or otherwise, to come under any responsibility, except 
to the people, and those whom they have appointed to pass upon 
the question, whether laws, supported by my votes, conform to 
the Constitution of the country. And, Sir, if we look to the 
general nature of the case, could any thing have been more pre- 
posterous, than to make a government for the whole Union, 
and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpretation, 
but to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations? Instead of one 
tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to de- 
cide for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four-and- 
twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and 
none bound to respect the decisions of others; and each at lib- 
erty, too, to give a new construction on every new election of 
its own members? Would any thing, with such a principle in 
it, or rather with such a destitution of all principle, be fit to be 
called a government? No, Sir. It should not be denominated 
a Constitution. It should be called, rather, a collection of top- 
ics for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputa- 
tious peeple. It would not be a government. It would not be 
adequate to any practical good, or fit for any country to live 
under. 

To avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to 
repeat again, in the fullest manner, that I claim no powers for 
the government by forced or unfair construction. | | admit that 
it is a government of strictly limited powers; of enumerated, 
specified, and particularized powers ; and that whatsoever is not 
granted, is withheld. But notwithstanding all this, and however 
the grant of powers may be expressed, its limit and extent may 
yet, in some cases, admit of doubt; and the general govern- 
ment would be good for nothing, it would be incapable of long: 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 337 


existing, if some mode had not been provided in which those 
doubts, as they should arise, might be peaceably, but author- 
itatively, solved. 

And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentle- 
man’s doctrine a little into its practical application. Let us 
look at his probable modus operandi. If a thing can be done, an 
ingenious man can tell how it is to be done, and I wish to be 
informed how this State interference is to be put in practice, 
without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. We will take the 
existing case of the tariff law. South Carolina is said to have 
made up her opinion upon it. If we do not repeal it (as we 
probably shall not), she will then apply to the case the remedy 
of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass a law of her 
legislature, declaring the several acts of Congress, usually called 
the tariff laws, null and void, so far as they respect South Caro- 
lina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper transaction, 
and easy enough. But the collector at Charleston is collecting 
the duties imposed by these tariff laws. He, therefore, must be 
stopped. The collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties 
are not paid. ‘The State authorities will undertake their rescue, 
the marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector’s aid, and 
here the contest begins. The militia of the State will be called 
out to sustain the nullifying act. They will march, Sir, under a 
very gallant leader; for I believe the honorable member himself 
commands the militia of that part of the State. He will raise 
the NuULLIFYING acT on his standard, and spread it out as his 
banner! It will have a preamble, setting forth, that the tariff 
laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the 
Constitution! He will proceed, with this banner flying, to the 
custom-house in Charleston, 

*¢ All the while, 
Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds.”’ 

Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he must 
collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. This he will 
be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave counte- 
nance, considering what hand South Carolina herself had in that 
of 1816. But, Sir, the collector would not, probably, desist, at his 
bidding. He would show him the law of Congress, the treasury 
instruction, and his own oath of office. He would say, he should 
perform his duty, come what come might, 

VOL. III. 29 


338 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


Here would ensue a pause; for they say that a certain still- 
ness precedes the tempest. The trumpeter would hold his 
breath awhile, and before all this military array should fall on 
the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable 
some of those composing it would request of their gallant com- 
mander-in-chief to be informed a little upon the point of law; 
for they have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions as a law- 
yer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. They know he has 
read Blackstone and the Constitution, as well as 'lurenne and 
Vauban. They would ask him, therefore, something concern- 
ing their rights in this matter. They would inquire, whether 
it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the United 
States. What would be the nature of their offence, they would 
wish to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the 
execution in Carolina of a law of the United States, and it 
should turn out, after all, that the law was tonstilutional? He 
would answer, of course, Treason. No lawyer could give any 
other answer. John Fries, he would tell them, had learned 
that, some years ago. How, then, they would ask, do you pro- 
pose to defendus? Weare not afraid of bullets, but treason has 
a way of taking people off that we do not much relish. How 
do you propose to defend us? “ Look at my floating banner,” 
he would reply; “see there the nullifying law!” Is it your 
opinion, gallant commander, they would then say, that, if we 
should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of 
yours would make a good plea in bar? “South Carolina is a 
sovereign State,’ he would reply. That is true; but. would 
the judge admit our plea? “These tariff laws,’ he would 
repeat, “are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, danger- 
ously.” That may all be so; but if the tribunal should not hap- 
pen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? We are ready 
to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, 
this dying without touching the ground! After all, that is a 
sort of hemp tax worse than any part of the tariff. 

Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilem- 
ma, like that of another great general. He would have a knot 
before him which he could not untie. He must cut it with his 
sword. He must say to his followers, “ Defend yourselves with 
your bayonets”; and this is war, — civil war. 

Direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the un- 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 339 


avoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitu- 
tional laws which the gentleman contends for. It must happen 
in the very first case to which it is applied. Is not this the plain 
result? ‘To resist by force the execution of a law, generally, is 
treason. Can the courts of the United States take notice of the 
indulgence of a State to commit treason? ‘The common say- 
ing, that a State cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to 
the purpose. Can she authorize others to do it? If John Fries 
had produced an act of Pennsylvania, annulling the law of Con- 
gress, would it have helped his case? ‘Talk about it as we will, 
these doctrines go the length of revolution. 'They are incom- 
patible with any peaceable administration of the government. 
They lead directly to disunion and civil commotion; and there- 
fore it is, that at their commencement, when they are first found 
to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, I 
enter my pubic protest against them all. 

The honorable gentleman argues, that if this government be 
the sole judge of the extent of its own powers, whether that 
right of judging be in Congress or the Supreme Court, it 
equally subverts State sovereignty. This the gentleman sees, or 
thinks he sees, although he cannot perceive how the right of 
judging, in this matter, if left to the exercise of State legisla- 
tures, has any tendency to subvert the government of the Union. 
The gentleman’s opinion may be, that the right ought not to 
have been lodged with the general government; he may like 
better such a constitution as we should have under the right of 
State interference; but I ask him to meet me on the plain mat- 
ter of fact. I ask him to meet me on the Constitution itself. I 
ask him if the power is not found there, clearly and visibly found 
there ? * 

But, Sir, what is this danger, and what are the grounds of 
it? Let it be remembered, that the Constitution of the United 
States is not unalterable. It is to continue in its present form 
no longer than the people who established it shall choose to con- 
tinue it. If they shall become convinced that they have made 
an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution of power 
between the State governments and the general government, 
they can alter that distribution at will. 


* See Note C, at the end of the speech. 


340 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


If any thing be found in the national Constitution, either by 
original provision or subsequent interpretation, which ought 
not to be in it, the people know how to get rid of it. If any 
construction, unacceptable to them, be established, so as to be- 
come practically a part of the Constitution, they will amend it, 
at their own sovereign pleasure. But while the people choose 
to maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it, and re- 
fuse to change it, who has given, or who can give, to the State 
legislatures a right to alter it, either by interference, construction, 
or otherwise? Gentlemen do not seem to recollect that the 
people have any power to do any thing for themselves. They 
imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than they are 
under the close guardianship of the State legislatures. Sir, the 
people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the general 
Constitution, to these hands. ‘They have required other security, 
and taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust themselves, 
first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construc- 
tion as the government themselves, in doubtful cases, should put 
on their own powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to 
their responsibility to them; just as the people of a State trust 
their own State governments with a similar power. Secondly, 
they have reposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, 
and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents 
whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they have reposed trust m 
the judicial power, which, in order that it might be trustworthy, 
they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as inde- 
pendent as was practicable. Fourthly, they have seen fit to 
rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known 
and admitted power to alter or amend the Constitution, peace- 
ably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or 
imperfections. And, finally, the people of the United States 
have at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized 
any State legislature to construe or interpret éheir high instru- 
ment of government; much less, to interfere, by their own power, 
to arrest its course and operation. 

If, Sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than 
they have done, their constitution could neither have been pre- 
served, nor would it have been worth preserving. And if its 
plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and these new doc- 
trines interpolated in it, it will become as feeble and helpless a 


« 


SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 341 


being as its enemies, whether early or more recent, could possi- 
bly desire. It will exist in every State but as a poor dependent 
on State permission. It must borrow leave to be; and will be, 
no longer than State pleasure, or State discretion, sees fit to 
grant the indulgence, and to prolong its poor existence. 

But, Sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. ‘The 
people have preserved this, their own chosen Constitution, for 
forty years, and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and re- 
nown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. 
They are now, generally, strongly attached to it. Overthrown 
by direct assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined, NULLIFIED, 
it will not be, if we, and those who shall succeed us here, as 
agents and representatives of the people, shall conscientiously 
and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public 
trust, faithfully to preserve, and wisely to administer it. 

Mr. President, I have thus stated the reasons of my dissent 
to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. I 
am conscious of having detained you and the Senate much too 
long. I was drawn into the debate with no previous delibera- 
tion, such as is suited to the discussion of so grave and impor- 
tant a subject. But it is a subject of which my heart is full, 
and I have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its 
spontaneous sentiments. I cannot, even now, persuade myself 
to relinquish it, without expressing once more my deep conviction, 
that, since it respects nothing less than the Union of the States, it 
is of most vital and essential importance to the public happiness. 
I profess, Sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in 
view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the 
preservation of our Federal Union. It is to that Union we owe 
our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. 
It is to that Union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever 
makes us most proud of our country. ‘That Union we reached 
only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of ad- 
versity. It had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, 
prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. Under its benign influ- 
ences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, 
and sprang forth with newness of life. Every year of its dura- 
tion has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings ; 
and although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, 
and our population spread farther and farther, they have not 

hd 


. 


342 SECOND SPEECH ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


outrun its protection or its benefits. It has been to us all a 
copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness. 

I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to 
see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have 
not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the 
bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have 
not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to 
see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the 
abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the 
affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly 
bent on considering, not how the Union may be best pre- 
served, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people 
when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union 
lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out be- 
fore us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not. to 
penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that 
curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may 
be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to 
behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him 
shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glo- 
rious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a 
land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal 
blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather be- 
hold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and 
honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms 
and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe 
erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its 
motto, no such miserable interrogatory as “ What is all this 
worth?” nor those other words of delusion and folly, “ Liberty 
first and Union afterwards”; but everywhere, spread all over in 
characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they 
float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under 
the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true 
American heart, — Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one 
and inseparable! 


LAST REMARKS ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION.* 


» Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the consti- 
tutional question, Mr. Webster rose, and, in conclusion, said : — 


A rrw words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, 
which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. 

His argument consists of two propositions and an inference. 
His propositions are, — 

1. That the Constitution is a compact between the States. 

2. 'That a compact between two, with authority reserved to 
one to interpret its terms, would be a surrender to that one of 
all power whatever. 

3. Therefore, (such is his inference,) the general government 
does not possess the authority to construe its own powers. 

Now, Sir, who does not see, without the aid of exposition o1 
detection, the utter confusion of ideas involved in this so elab- 
orate and systematic argument. 

The Constitution, it is said, is a compact between States; the 
States, then, and the States only, are parties to the compact. 
How comes the general government itself a party? Upon the 
honorable gentleman’s hypothesis, the general government is the 
result of the compact, the creature of the compact, not one of 
the parties to it. Yet the argument, as the gentleman has now 
stated it, makes the government itself one of its own creators. 
It makes it a party to that compact to which it owes its own 
existence. 

For the purpose of erecting the Constitution on the basis of 
a compact, the gentleman considers the States as parties to that 
compact; but as soon as his compact is made, then he chooses 


* Delivered in the Senate, on the 27th of January, 1830. 


344 LAST REMARKS ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


to consider the general government, which is the offspring of 
that compact, not its offspring, but one of its parties; and so, 
being a party, without the power of judging on the terms of 
compact. Pray, Sir, in what school is such reasoning as this 
taught ? 

If the whole of the gentleman’s main proposition were con- 
ceded to him; that is to say, if I admit, for the sake of the argu- 
ment, that the Constitution 1s a compact between States, the in- 
ferences which he draws from that proposition are warranted 
by no just reasoning. If the Constitution be a compact between 
States, still that Constitution, or that compact, has established 
a government, with certain powers; and whether it be one of 
those powers, that it shall construe and interpret for itself the 
terms of the compact, in doubtful cases, is a question which can 
only be decided by looking to the compact, and inquiring what 
provisions it contains on this point. Without any inconsistency 
with natural reason, the government even thus created might 
be trusted with this power of construction. The extent of its 
powers, therefore, must still be sought for in the instrument 
itself. | 

If the old Confederation had contained a clause, declaring that 
resolutions of the Congress should be the supreme law of the 
land, any State law or constitution to the contrary notwith- 
standing, and that a committee of Congress, or any other body 
created by it, should possess judicial powers, extending to all 
cases arising under resolutions of Congress, then the power of 
ultimate decision would have been vested in Congress under 
the confederation, although that confederation was a compact 
between States; and for this plain reason; that it would have 
been competent to the States, who alone were parties to the 
compact, to agree who should decide in cases of dispute arising 
on the construction of the compact. 

For the same reason, Sir, if I were now to concede to the 
gentleman his principal proposition, namely, that the Constitu- 
tion is a compact between States, the question would still be, 
What provision is made, in this compact, to settle points of dis- 
puted construction, or contested power, that shall come into 
controversy? And this question would still be answered, and 
conclusively answered, by the Constitution itself. 

While the gentleman is contending against construction, he 


LAST REMARKS ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 345 


himself is setting up the most loose and dangerous construc- 
tion. The Constitution declares, that the laws of Congress 
passed in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law 
of the land. No construction is necessary here. It declares, 
also, with equal plainness and precision, that the judicial power 
of the United States shall extend to every case arising under the 
laws of Congress. 'This needs no construction. Here is a law, 
then, which is declared to be supreme; and here is a power es- 
tablished, which is to interpret that law. Now, Sir, how has 
the gentleman met this? Suppose the Constitution to be a 
compact, yet here are its terms; and how does the gentleman get 
rid of them? He cannot argue the seal off the bond, nor the 
words out of the instrument. Here they are; what answer does 
he give to them? None in the world, Sir, except, that the effect 
of this would be to place the States in a condition of inferiority ; 
and that it results from the very nature of things, there being no 
superior, that the parties must be their own judges! Thus 
closely and cogently does the honorable gentleman reason on 
the words of the Constitution. The gentleman says, if there 
be such a power of final decision in the general government, he 
asks for the grant of that power. Well, Sir, I show him the 
grant. I turn him to the very words. I show him that the 
laws of Congress are made supreme; and that the judicial 
power extends, by express words, to the interpretation of these 
laws. Instead of answering this, he retreats into the general 
reflection, that it must result from the nature of things, that the 
States, being parties, must judge for themselves. 

I have admitted, that, if the Constitution were to be con- 
sidered as the creature of the State governments, it might be 
modified, interpreted, or construed according to their pleasure. 
But, even in that case, it would be necessary that they should 
agree. One alone could not interpret it conclusively; one alone 
could not construe it; one alone could not modify it. Yet 
the gentleman’s doctrine is, that Carolina: alone may construe 
and interpret that compact which equally binds all, and gives 
equal rights to all. 

So, then, Sir, even supposing the Constitution to be a com- 
pact between the States, the gentleman’s doctrine, neverthe- 
less, is not maintainable; because, first, the general government 
is not a party to that compact, but a government established 


346 LAST REMARKS ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 


by it, and vested by it with the powers of trying and decid= 


ing doubtful questions; and secondly, because, if the Consti- 
tution be regarded as a compact, not one State only, but all 
the States, are parties to that compact, and one can have no 
right to fix upon it her own peculiar construction. 

So much, Sir, for the argument, even if the premises of the 


gentleman were granted, or could be proved. But, Sir, the 


gentleman has failed to maintain his leading proposition. He 
has not shown, it cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a 
compact between State governments. The’ Constitution itself, 
in its very front, refutes that idea; it declares that it is ordained 
and established by the people of the United States. So far from 
saying that it is established by the governments of the several 
States, it does not even say that it is established by the peo- 
ple of the several States; but it pronounces that it is estab- 
lished by the people of the United States, in the aggregate. 
The gentleman says, it must mean no imore than the people 
of the sevéral States. Doubtless, the people of the several 
States, taken collectively, constitute the people of the United 
States; but it is in this, their collective capacity, it is as all 
the people of the United States, that they establish the Con- 
stitution. So they declare; and words cannot be plainer than 
the words used. 

When the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact be- 
tween the States, he uses language exactly applicable to the old 
Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 
1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. 
The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as 
States, were parties to it. We had no other general govern- 
ment. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the 
public exigencies. ‘The people were not satisfied with it, and 
undertook to establish a better. They undertook to form a gen- 
eral government, which should stand on a new basis; not a con- 
federacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a 
Constitution; a popular government, founded in popular election, 
directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into 
branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. 
They ordained such a government, they gave it the name of a 
Constitution, and therein they established a distribution of pow- 
ers between this, their general government, and their several 


i i 


LAST REMARKS ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 347 


State governments. When they shall become dissatisfied with 
this distribution, they can alter it. ‘Their own power over their 
own instrument remains. But until they shall alter it, it must 
stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general gov- 
ernment and on the States. 

The gentleman, Sir, finds analogy where I see none. He 
likens it to the case of a treaty, in which, there being no com- 
mon superior, each party must interpret for itself, under its own 
obligation of good faith. But this is not a treaty, but a con- 
stitution of government, with powers to execute itself, and fulfil 
its duties. 

I admit, Sir, that this government is a government of checks 
and balances; that is, the House of Representatives is a check 
on the Senate, and the Senate is a check on the House, and the 
President a check on both. But I cannot comprehend him, 
or, if I do, I totally differ from him, when he applies the notion 
of checks and balances to the interference of different govern- 
ments. He argues, that, if we transgress our constitutional lim- 
its, each State, as a State, has a right to check us. Does he 
admit the converse of the proposition, that we have a right .to 
check the States? ‘The gentleman’s doctrines would give us a 
strange jumble of authorities and powers, instead of govern- 
ments of separate and defined powers. It is the part of wisdom, 
I think, to avoid this; and to keep the general government and 
the State government each in its proper sphere, avoiding as 
carefully as possible every kind of interference. 

Finally, Sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the States 
will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. 
They will not destroy it, they will not impair it; they will only 
save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! Ah! 
Sir, this is but the old story. All regulated governments, all 
free governments, have been broken by similar disinterested and 
well disposed interference. It is the common pretence. But I 
take leave of the subject. 


348 NOTES TO THE SECOND SPEECH 


NOTES: 


NOTE A. Page 282. 


Extract from the Journal of the Congress of the Confederation. 


Wednesday, 21st February, 1787. 

Coneress assembled: Present, as before. The report of a grand 
committee, consisting of Mr. Dane, Mr. Varnum, Mr. S. M. Mitchell, 
Mr. Smith, Mr. Cadwallader, Mr. Irvine, Mr. N. Mitchell, Mr. Forrest, 
Mr. Grayson, Mr. Blount, Mr. Bull, and Mr. Few, to whom was referred 
a letter of 14th September, 1786, from J. Dickinson, written at the re- 
quest of commissioners from the States of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsyl- 
vania, New Jersey, and New York, assembled at the city of Annapolis, 
together with a copy of the report of said commissioners to the legisla- 
tures of the States by whom they were appointed, being an order of the 
day, was called up, and which is contained in the following resolution, 
viz. : — 

*¢ Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickin- 
son, Esq., chairman of the commissioners who assembled at Annapolis 
during the last year, also the proceedings of the said commissioners, 
and entirely coinciding with them as to the inefficiency of the federal 
government, and the necessity of devising such further provisions as 
shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union, do 
strongly recommend to the different legislatures to send forward dele- 
gates to meet the proposed Convention, on the second Monday in May 
next, at the city of Philadelphia.” 


NOTE B. Page 298. 


Extract from Mr. Calhoun’s Speech in the House of: Representatives, 
April, 1816, on Mr. Randolph’s Motion to strike out the Minimum 
Valuation on Cotton Goods. 


‘‘ Tue debate, heretofore, on this subject, has been on the degree of 
protection which ought to be afforded to our cotton and woollen manu- 


ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 349 


factures; all professing to be friendly to those infant establishments, 
and to be willing to extend to them adequate encouragement. The 
present motion assumes a new aspect. It is introduced, professedly, on 
the ground that manufactures ought not to receive any encouragement ; 
and will, in its operation, leave our cotton establishments exposed to the 
competition of the cotton goods of the East Indies, which, it is acknowl- 
edged on all sides, they are not capable of meeting with success, without 
the proviso proposed to be stricken out by the motion now under discus- 
sion. ‘Till the debate assumed this new form, he (Mr. Calhoun) deter- 
mined to be silent; participating, as he largely did, in that general anxic- 
ty which is felt, after so long and laborious a session, to return to the 
bosom of our families. But on a subject of such vital importance, 
touching, as it does, the security and permanent prosperity of our 
country, he hoped that the House would indulge him in a few observa- 
tions. 

“To give perfection to this state of things, it will be necessary to add, 
as soon as possible, a system of internal improvements, and, at least, 
such an extension of our navy as will prevent the cutting off our coast- 
ing trade. The advantage of each is so striking as not to require illus- 
tration, especially after the experience of the late war. 

*« He firmly believed that the country is prepared, even to maturity, 
for the introduction of manufactures. We have abundance of resour- 
ces, and things naturally tend, at this moment, in that direction. A 
prosperous commerce has poured an immense amount of commercial 
capital into this country. This capital has till lately found occupation 
in commerce; but that state of the world which transferred it to this 
country and gave it active employment, has passed away, never to re- 
turn. Where shall we now find full employment for our prodigious 
amount of tonnage? Where, markets for the numerous and abundant 
products of our country? ‘This great body of active capital, which, 
for the moment, has found sufficient employment in supplying our mar- 
kets, exhausted by the war and measures preceding it, must find a 
new direction; it will not be idle. What channel can it take but that 
of manufactures? ‘This, if things continue as they are, will be its 
direction. It will introduce an era in our affairs, in many respects 
highly advantageous, and which ought to be countenanced by the gov- 
ernment. 

‘« Besides, we have already surmounted the greatest difficulty that has 
ever been found in undertakings of this kind. ‘The cotton and woollen 
manufactures are not to be introduced, —they are already introduced 
to a great extent; freeing us entirely from the hazards, and, in a great 
measure, the sacrifices, experienced in giving the capital of the country 
a new direction. The restrictive measures, and the war, though not in- 

VOL. II. 30 


300 NOTES TO THE SECOND SPEECH 


tended for that purpose, have, by the necessary operation of things, 
turned a large amount of capital to this new branch of industry. He 
had often heard it said, both in and out of Congress, that this effect 
alone would indemnify the country for all its losses. So high was this 
tone of feeling when the want of these establishments was practically 
felt, that he remembered, during the war, when some question was 
agitated respecting the introduction of foreign goods, that many then 
opposed it on the ground of injuring our manufactures. He then said, 
that war alone furnished sufficient stimulus, and perhaps toc much, as it 
would make their growth unnaturally rapid; but that, on the return of 
peace, it would then be time to show our affection for them. He at 
that time did not expect an apathy and aversion to the extent which is 
now seen. 

‘* But it will no doubt be said, if they are so far established, and if the 
situation of the country is so favorable to their growth, where is the ne- 
cessity of affording them protection? It is to put them beyond the 
reach of contingency. 

‘¢ It has been further asserted, that manufactures are the fruitful cause 
of pauperism ; and England has been referred to as furnishing conclu- 
sive evidence of its truth. For his part, he could perceive no such ten- 
dency in them, but the exact contrary, as they furnished new stimulus 
and means of subsistence to the laboring classes of the community. 
We ought not to look at the cotton and woollen establishments of Great 
Britain for the prodigious numbers of poor with which her population 
was disgraced ; causes much more efficient exist. Her poor laws, and 
statutes regulating the prices of labor, with taxes, were the real causes. 
But if it must be so, if the mere fact that England manufactured more 
than any other country, explained the cause of her having more beg- 
gars, it is just as reasonable to refer to the same cause her courage, 
spirit, and all her masculine virtues, in which she excels all other na- 
tions, with a single exception; he meant our own, in which we might, 
without vanity, challenge a preéminence. 

*¢ Another objection had been, which he must acknowledge was better 
founded, that capital employed in manufacturing produced a greater 
dependence on the part of the employed, than in commerce, navigation, 
or agriculture. It is certainly an evil, and to be regretted, but he did 
not think it a decisive objection to the system; especially when it had 
incidental political advantages, which, in his opinion, more than coun- 
terpoised it. It/produced an interest strictly American, as much so as 
agriculture, in which it had the decided advantage of commerce or nay- 
igation. ‘The country will from this derive much advantage. 

“Again: it is calculated to bind togethér more closely our widely 
spread republic. It will greatly increase our mutual dependence and 


ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 301 


imtercourse ; and will, as a necessary consequence, excite an increased 
attention to internal improvements, a subject every way so intimately 
connected with the ultimate attainment of national strength, and the per- 
fection of our political institutions.” 


Extract from the Speech of Mr. Calhoun, April, 1816, on the Direct 
Tax. 


In regard to the question, how far manufactures ought to be fostered, 
Mr, Calhoun said, “{t was the duty of this country, as a means of 
defence, to encourage the domestic industry of the country, more espe- 
cially that part of it which provides the necessary materials for clothing 
and defence. Let us look to the nature of the war most likely to occur. 
England is in the possession ef the ocean. No man, however sanguine, 
can believe that we can deprive her soon of her predominance there. 
That control deprives us of the means of keeping our army and nayy 
cheaply clad. ‘The question relating to manufactures must not depend 
on the abstract principle, that industry, left to pursue its own course, 
will find in its own interest all the encouragement that is necessary. I 
lay the claims of the manufacturers entirely out of view,” said Mr. Cal- 
houn; ‘* but, on general principles, without regard to their interest, a 
certain encouragement should be extended, at least, to our woollen and 
cotton manufactures. 

*« This nation,’? Mr. Calhoun said, ‘‘ was rapidly changing the charac- 
ter of its industry. When a nation is agricultural, depending for supply 
on foreign markets, its people may be taxed through its imports almost 
to the amount of its capacity. ‘The nation was, however, rapidly be- 
coming, to a considerable extent, a manufacturing nation.” 


To the quotations from the speeches and proceedings of the Repre- 
sentatives of South Carolina in Congress, during Mr. Monroe’s adminis- 
tration, may be added the following extract from Mr. Calhoun’s report 
on roads and canals, submitted to Congress on the 7th of January, 1819, 
from the Department of War :— 

** A judicious system of roads and canals, constructed for the conven- 
ience of commerce and the transportation of the mail only, without any 
reference to military operations, is itself among the most efficient means 
for the ‘ more complete defence of the United States.’ Without advert- 
ing to the fact, that the roads and canals which such a system would re- 
quire are, with few exceptions, precisely those which would be required 
for the operations of war; such a system, by consolidating our Union 
and increasing our wealth and fiscal capacity, would add greatly to our 
resources in war. It is in a state of war, when a nation is compelled to 
put all its resources, in men, money, skill, and devotion to country, into 


302 NOTES TO THE SECOND SPEECH 


requisition, that its government realizes in its security the beneficial 
effects from a people made prosperous and happy by a wise direction 
of its resources in peace. 

‘‘ Should Congress think proper to commence a system of roads and 
canals for the ‘ more complete defence of the United States,’ the dis- 
bursements of the sum appropriated for the purpose might be made by 
the Department of War, under the direction of the President. Where 
incorporated companies are already formed, or the road or cana! com- 
menced, under the superintendence of a State, it perhaps would be ad- 
visable to direct a subscription on the part of the United States, on such 
terms and conditions as might be thought proper.” 


NOTE C. Page 339. 


Tue following resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia bear so per- 
tinently and so strongly on this point of the debate, that they are thought 
worthy of being inserted in a note, especially as other resolutions of the 
same body are referred to in the discussion. It will be observed that 
these resolutions were unanimously adopted in each house. 


VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE. 
Extract from the Message of Governor Tyler, December 4, 1809. 


‘¢ A proposition from the State of Pennsylvania is herewith submitted, 
with Governor Snyder’s letter accompanying the same, in which is sug- 
gested the propriety of amending the Constitution of the United States, 
so as to prevent collision between the government of the Union and the 
State governments.” 


Houses or Detecates, Friday, December 15, 1809. 
On motion, Ordered, That so much of the Governor’s communication 
as relates to the communication from the Governor of Pennsylvania, on 
the subject of an amendment proposed by the Legislature of that State 
to the Constitution of the United States, be referred to Messrs. Peyton, 
Otey, Cabell, Walker, Madison, Holt, Newton, Parker, Stevenson, Ran- 
dolph (of Amelia), Cocke, Wyatt, and Ritchie. — Journal, p. 25. 


Thursday, January 11, 1810. 
Mr. Peyton, from the committee to whom was referred that part of 
the Governor’s communication which relates to the amendment pro- 
posed by the State of Pennsylvania to the Constitution of the United 
States, made the following report : — 
The committee to whom was referred the communication of the Gov- 


ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION, 303 


ernor of Pennsylvania, covering certain resolutions of the Legislature of 
that State, proposing an amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States, by the, appointment of an impartial tribunal to decide disputes 
between the States and Federal Judiciary, have had the same under their 
consideration, and are of opinion that a tribunal is already provided by 
the Constitution of the United States ; to wit, the Supreme Court, more 
eminently qualified, from their habits and duties, from the mode of their 
selection, and from the tenure of their offices, to decide the disputes 
aforesaid in an enlightened and impartial manner, than any other tribu- 
nal which could be created. 

The members of the Supreme Court are selected from those in the 
United States who are most celebrated for virtue and legal learning, not 
at the will of a single individual, but by the concurrent wishes of the 
President and Senate of the United States; they will, therefore, have 
no local prejudices and partialities. The duties they have to perform 
lead them, necessarily, to the most enlarged and accurate acquaintance 
with the jurisdiction of the Federal and State courts together, and with 
the admirable symmetry of our government. The tenure of their offi- 
ces enables them to pronounce the sound and correct opinions they may 
have formed, without fear, favor, or partiality. 

The amendment to the Constitution proposed by Pennsylvania seems 
to be founded upon the idea that the Federal Judiciary will, from a lust 
of power, enlarge their jurisdiction to the total annihilation of the juris- 
diction of the State courts ;- that they will exercise their will, instead of 
the law and the Constitution. 

This argument, if it proves any thing, would operate more strongly 
against the tribunal proposed to be created, which promises so little 
than against the Supreme Court, which, for the reasons given before 
have every thing connected with their appointment calculated to insure 
confidence. What security have we, were the proposed amendment 
adopted, that this tribunal would not substitute their will and their pleas- 
ure in place of the law? ‘The judiciary are the weakest of the three 
departments of government, and least dangerous to the political rights 
of the Constitution; they hold neither the purse nor the sword; and, 
even to enforce their own judgments and decisions, must ultimately de- 
pend upon the executive arm. Should the Federal Judiciary, however, 
unmindful of their weakness, unmindful of the duty which they owe to 
themselves and their country, become corrupt, and transcend the limits 
of their ‘urisdiction, would the proposed amendment oppose even a prob- 
able barrier in such an improbable state of things ? 

The creation of a tribunal such as is proposed by Pennsylvania, so 
far as we are able to form an idea of it, from the description given in 
the resolutions of the Legislature of that State, would, in the opinion of 

30 * 


354 NOTES TO THE SECOND SPEECH 


your committee, tend rather to invite than to prevent collisions between 
the Federal and State courts. It might also become, in process of time, 
a serious and dangerous embarrassment to the operations of the general 
government. 

Resolved, therefore, That the Legislature of this State do disapprove 
of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed by 
the Legislature of Pennsylvania. 

Resolved, also, That his Excellency, the Governor, be, and he is 
hereby, requested to transmit forthwith a copy of the foregoing pream- 
ble and resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives of this 
State in Congress, and to the executive of the several States in the 
Union, with a request that the same be laid before the legislatures 
thereof. 

The said resolutions, being read a second time, were, on motion, or- 
dered to be referred to a committee of the whole house on the state of 
the Commonwealth. 


Tuesday, January 23, 1810. 

The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a 
committee of the whole house on the state of the Commonwealth, and, 
after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. 
Stanard of Spottsylvania reported that the committee had, according 
to order, had under consideration the preamble and resolutions of the 
select committee to whom was referred that part of the Governor’s 
communication which relates to the amendment proposed to the Consti- 
tution of the United States by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, had gone 
through with the same, and directed him to report them to the house 
without amendment; which he handed in at the clerk’s table. 

And the question being put on agreeing to the said preamble and res- 
olutions, they were agreed to by the House unanimously. 

Ordered, 'That the clerk carry the said preamble and resolutions to 
the Senate, and desire their concurrence. 


In Senate, Wednesday, January 24, 1810. 
The preamble and resolutions on the amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States proposed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, by 
the appointment of an impartial tribunal to decide disputes between the 
States and Federal Judiciary, being also delivered in and twice read, on 
motion, were ordered to be committed to Messrs. Nelson, Currie, Camp- 


bell, Upshur, and Wolfe. 


Friday, January 26, 1810. 
Mr. Nelson reported, from the committee to whom was committed the 


ON FOOT’S RESOLUTION. 355 


preamble and resolutions on the amendment proposed by the Legisla- 
ture of Pennsylvania, &c., that the committee had, according to order, 
taken the said preamble, &c., under their consideration, and directed 
him to report them without any amendment. 

And on the question being put thereupon, the same was agreed to 
unanimously. 


THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN AS 
MINISTER TO ENGLAND.* 


Mr. Presipent, as it is highly probable that our proceedings 
on this nomination will be published, I] deem it proper to state 
shortly the considerations which have influenced my opinion, 
and will decide my vote. , 

I regard this as a very important and delicate question. It is 
full of responsibility ; and I feel the whole force of that respon- 
sibility. While I have been in the Senate, I have opposed no 
nomination of the President, except for cause; and I have at 
all times thought that such cause should be plain and sufficient; 
that it should be real and substantial, not unfounded or fanciful. 

I have never desired, and do not now desire, to encroach in 
the slightest degree on the constitutional powers of the chief 
magistrate of the nation. I have heretofore gone far, very far, 
in assenting to nominations which have been submitted to us. 
I voted for the appointment of all the gentlemen who composed 
the first cabinet; I have opposed no nomination of a foreign 
minister; and I have not opposed the nominations recently be- 
fore us, for the reorganization of the administration. I have 
always been especially anxious, that, in all matters relating to 
our intercourse with other nations, the utmost harmony, the 
greatest unity of purpose, should exist between the President 
and the Senate. I know how much of usefulness to the public 
service such harmony and union are calculated to produce. 

IT am now fully aware, Sir, that it is a serious, a very serious 
matter, to vote against the confirmation of a minister to a for- 
eign court, who has already gone abroad, and has been received 


* Remarks made in Secret Session of the Senate of the United States, on the 
24th of January, 1832, on the Nomination of Mr. Van Buren as Minister to 
Great Britain. 


THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN. 307 


and accredited by the government to which he is sent. Iam 
aware that the rejection of this nomination, and the necessary 
recall of the minister, will be regarded by foreign states, at the 
first blush, as not in the highest degree favorable to the char- 
acter of our government. I know, moreover, to what injurious 
reflections one may subject himself, especially in times of party 
excitement, by giving a negative vote on such a nomination. 
But, after all, I am placed here to discharge a duty. Iam not 
to go through a formality; I am to perform a substantial and 
responsible duty. Iam to advise the President in matters of 
appointment. ‘This is my constitutional obligation; and I shall 
perform it conscientiously and fearlessly. I am bound to say, 
then, Sir, that, for one, I do not advise nor consent to this nomi- 
nation. Ido not think it a fit and proper nomination; and my 
reasons are found in the letter of instructions written by Mr. 
Van Buren, on the 20th of July, 1829, to Mr. McLane, then 
going to the court of England, as American Minister. I think 
these instructions derogatory, in a high degree, to the character 
and honor of the country. I think they show a manifest dispo- 
sition in the writer of them to establish a distinction between 
his country and his party; to place that party above the coun- 
try; to make interest at a foreign court for that party rather 
than for the country; to persuade the English ministry, and the 
English monarch, that they have an interest in maintaining in 
the United States the ascendency of the party to which the 
writer belongs. Thinking thus of the purpose and object of 
these instructions, I cannot be of opinion that their author is a 
proper representative of the United States at that court. There- 
fore it is, that I propose to vote against his nomination. It is 
the first time, I believe, in modern diplomacy, it is certainly the 
first time in our history, in which a minister to a foreign court 
has sought to make favor for one party at home against another, 
or has stooped from being the representative of the whole coun- 
try to be the representative of a party. And as this is the first 
instance in our history of any such transaction, so I intend to 
do all in my power to make it the last. For one, I set my mark 
of disapprobation upon it; I contribute my voice and my vote 
to make it a negative example, to be shunned and avoided by 
all future ministers of the United States. If, in a deliberate 
and formal letter of instructions, admonitions and directions are 


308 THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN 


given to a minister, and repeated, once and again, to urge these 
mere party considerations on the foreign government, to what 
extent is it probable the writer himself will be disposed to urge 
them, in his thousand opportunities of informal intercourse with 
the agents of that government? 

I propose, Sir, to refer to some particular parts of these in- 
structions; but before I do that, allow me to state, very gener- 
ally, the posture of the subject to which those particulars relate. 
That subject is the state of our trade with the British West 
India colonies. I do not deem it necessary now to go minutely 
into all the history of that trade. The occasion does not call for 
it. All know, tliat, by the convention of 1815, a reciprocity 
of intercourse was established between us acd Great Britain. 
The ships of both countries were allowed to pass to and from 
each other respectively, with the same cargoes, and subject to 
the same duties. But this arrangement did not extend to the 
British West Indies. There our intercourse was cut off. Vari- 
ous discriminating and retaliatory acts were passed by England 
and by the United States. Eventually, in the summer of 1825, 
the English Parliament passed an act, offering reciprocity, so far 
as the mere carrying trade was concerned, to all nations who 
might choose, within one year, to accept that offer. 

Mr. Adams’s administration did not accept that offer; first, 
because it was never officially communicated to it; secondly, 
because, only a few months before, a negotiation on the very 
same subject had been suspended, with an understanding that 
it might be resumed; and, thirdly, because it was very desirable 
to arrange the whole matter, if possible, by treaty, in order to 
secure, if we could, the admission of our products into the Brit- 
ish islands for consumption, as well as the admission of our 
vessels. ‘This object had been earnestly pursued ever since the 
peace of 1815. It was insisted on, as every body knows, 
through the whole of Mr. Monroe’s administration. He would 
not treat at all, without treating of this object. He thought the 
existing state of things better than any arrangement which, 
while it admitted our vessels into West India ports, still left our 
productions subject to such duties there, that they could not be 
carried. s 

Now, Sir, Mr. Adams’s administration was not the first to 
take this ground. It only occupied the same position which its 


AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. 359 


predecessor had taken. It saw no important objects to be gained 
by changing the state of things, unless that change was to 
admit our products into the British West Indies directly from 
our ports, and not burdened with excessive duties. The direct 
trade, by English enactments and American enactments, had 
become closed. No British ship came here from the British 
West Indies. No American ship went hence to those places. 
A circuitous trade took place through the islands of third pow- 
ers; and that circuitous trade was, in many respects, not disad- 
vantageous to us. 

In this state of things, Sir, Mr. McLane was sent to Eng- 
land; and he received his instructions from the Secretary of 
State. In these instructions, and in relation to this subject of 
the colonial trade, are found the sentiments of which I complain. 
What are they? Let us examine and see. 

Mr. Van Buren tells Mr. McLane, “ The opportunities which 
you have derived from a participation in our public counsels, as 
well as other sources of information, will enable. you to speak 
with confidence (as far as you may deem it proper and useful 
so to do) of the respective parts taken by those to whom the 
administration of this government is now committed, in relation 
to the course heretofore pursued upon the subject of the colonial 
trade.” 

Now, this is neither more nor less than saying, “ You will be 
able to tell the British minister, whenever you think proper, that 
you, and I, and the leading persons in this administration, have 
opposed the course heretofore pursued by the government, and 
the country, on the subject of the colonial trade. Be sure to let 
him know, that, on that subject, we have held with England, 
and not with our own government.” Now, I ask you, Sir, if 
this be dignified diplomacy. Is this statesmanship? Is it 
patriotism, or is it mere party? Is it a proof of a high regard to 
the honor and renown of the whole country, or is it evidence of 
a disposition to make a merit of belonging to one of its political 
divisions ? ‘ 

The Secretary proceeds: “ Their views” (that is, the views of 
the present administration) “upon that point have been submitted 
to the people of the United States; and the counsels by which 
your conduct is now directed are the result of the judgment 
expressed by the only earthly tribunal to which the late admin- 
istration was amenable for its acts.” 


360 THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN — 


Now, Sir, in the first place, there is very little reason to sup: 
pose that the first part of this paragraph is true, in point of fact; 
I mean that part which intimates that the change of administra- 
tion was brought about by public disapprobation of Mr. Adams’s 
conduct respecting the subject of the colonial trade. Possibly 
so much was then said on a subject which so few understood, 
that some degree of impression may have been produced by it. 
But be assured, Sir, another cause will be found, by future his- 
torians, for this change; and that cause will be the popularity 
of a successful soldier, united with a feeling, made to be con- 
siderably extensive, that the preferences of the people in his 
behalf had not been justly regarded on a previous occasion. 
There is, Sir, very little ground tosay that “the only tribunal to. 
which the late administration was amenable” has pronounced 
any judgment against it for its conduct on the whole subject. of 
the colonial trade. 

But, however this may be, the other assertion in the para- 
graph is manifestly quite wide of the facts. Mr. Adams’s ad- 
ministration did not bring forward this claim. I have stated, 
already, that it had been a subject both of negotiation and_ leg- 
islation through the whole eight years of Mr. Monroe’s admin- 
istration. ‘This the Secretary knew, or was bound to know. 
Why, then, does he speak of it as set up by the late admin- 
istration, and afterwards abandoned by them, and not now 
revived ? 

But the most humiliating part of the whole follows: —*“ To 
set up the acts of the late administration as the cause of forfeit-- 
ure of privileges which would otherwise be extended to the peo- 
ple of the United States, would, under existing circumstances, 
be unjust in itself, and could not fail to excite their deepest sen- 
sibility.” 

So, then, Mr. President, we are reduced, are we, to the poor 
condition, that we see a minister of this great republic instruct-- 
ed to argue, or to intercede, with the British minister, lest he 
should find us to have forfeited our privileges; and lest these 
privileges should no longer be extended to us! And we have 
forfeited those privileges by our misbehavior in choosing rulers, 
who thought better of our own claim than of the British! Why, - 
Sir, this is patiently submitting to the domineering tone of the 
British minister, I believe Mr. Huskisson—[Mr. Clay said, “ No, 


AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. 36] 


Mr. Canning.”] — Mr. Canning, then, Sir, who told us that all 
- our trade with the West Indies was a boon, granted to us by the 
indulgence of England. The British minister calls it a boon, 
and our minister admits it as a privilege, and hopes that his 
Majesty will be too gracious to decide that we have forfeited this 
privilege, by our misbehavior in the choice of our rulers! Sir, 
for one, I reject all idea of holding any right of trade, or any 
other rights, as a privilege or a boon from the British govern- 
ment, or any other government. 

At the conclusion of the paragraph, the Secretary says, 
“ You cannot press this view of the subject too earnestly upon 
the consideration of the British ministry. It has bearings and 
relations that reach beyond the immediate question under dis- 
cussion.” 

Adverting again to the same subject, towards the close of the 
despatch, he says, “I will add nothing as to the impropriety of 
suffering any feelings that find their origin in the past preten- 
sions of this government to have an adverse influence upon the 
present conduct of Great Britain.” 

I ask again, Mr. President, if this be statesmanship ? if this be 
dignity? if this be elevated regard for country? Can any man 
read this whole despatch with candor, and not admit that it is 
plainly and manifestly the writer’s intention to promote the in- 
terests of his party at the expense of those of the country ? 

Lest I should do the Secretary injustice, I will read all that I 
find, in this letter, upon this obnoxious point. These are the 


paragraphs : — 


*« Such is the present state of our commercial relations with the Brit- 
ish colonies; and such the steps by which we have arrived at it. In re- 
viewing the events which have preceded, and more or less contributed 
to, a result so much to be regretted, there will be found three grounds 
upon which we are most assailable ;— Ist. In our too long and too tena- 
ciously resisting the right of Great Britain to impose protecting duties in 
her colonies ; 2d,” &c. 

“‘ The opportunities which you have derived from a participation in 
our public counsels, as well as other sources of information, will enable 
you to speak with confidence (as far as you may deem it proper and 
useful so to do) of the respective parts taken by those to whom the ad- 
ministration of this government is now committed, in relation to the 
course heretofore pursued upon the subject of the colonial trade. ‘Their 

VOL. III. 31 


362 THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN 


views upon that point have been submitted to the people of the United 
States ; and the counsels by which your conduct is now directed are the 
result of the judgment expressed by the only earthly tribunal to which 
the late administration was amenable for its acts. It should be sufficient 
that the claims set up by them, and which caused the interruption of the 
trade in question, have been explicitly abandoned by those who first as- 
serted them, and are not revived by their successors. If Great Britain 
deems it adverse to her interests to allow us to participate in the trade 
with her colonies, and finds nothing in the extension of it to others to in- 
duce her to apply the same rule to us, she will, we hope, be sensible of | 
the propriety of placing her refusal on those grounds. To set up the 
acts of the late administration as the cause of forfeiture of. privileges 
which would otherwise be extended to the people of the United States, 
would, under existing circumstances, be unjust in itself, and could not fail 
to excite their deepest sensibility. The tone of feeling which a course so 
unwise and untenable is calculated to produce, would doubtless be greatly 
aggravated by the consciousness that Great Britain has, by order in coun- 
cil, opened her colonial ports to Russia and France, notwithstanding a 
similar omission on their part to accept the terms offered by the act of 
July, 1825. You cannot press this view of the subject too earnestly upon 
the consideration of the British ministry. It has bearings and relations 
that reach beyond the immediate question under discussion.” 

*¢ J will add nothing as to the impropriety of suffering any feelings that 
find their origin in the past pretensions of this government to have an 
adverse influence upon the present conduct of Great Britain.” 


Sir, I submit to you, and to the candor of all just men, if I 
am not right in saying that the pervading topic, through the 
whole, is, not American rights, not American interests, not 
American defence, but denunciation of past pretensions of our 
own country, reflections on the past administration, and exulta- 
tion and a loud claim of merit for the administration now in 
power. Sir, I would forgive mistakes; I would pardon the want 
of information ; I would pardon almost any thing, where I saw 
true patriotism and sound American feeling; but I cannot for- 
give the sacrifice of this feeling to mere party. J cannot con- 
cur in sending abroad a public agent, who has not concep- 
tions so large and liberal as to feel, that, in the presence of for- 
eign courts, amidst the monarchies of Europe, he is to stand 
up for his country, and his whole country; that no jot nor 
tittle of her honor is to suffer in his hands; that he is not to 
allow others to reproach either his government or his country, 


AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. \ 363 


and far less is he himself to reproach either; that he is to have 
no objects in his eye but American objects, and no heart in his 
bosom but an American heart; and that he is to forget self, and 
forget party, to forget every sinister and narrow feeling, in his 
proud and lofty attachment to the republic whose commission 
he bears. 

Mr. President, I have discharged an exceedingly unpleasant 
duty, the most unpleasant of my public life. But I have looked 
upon it as a duty, and it was not to be shunned. And, Sir, 
however unimportant may be the opinion of so humble an indi- 
vidual as myself, I now only wish that I might be heard by 
every independent freeman in the United States, by the British 
minister and the British king, and by every minister and every 
crowned head in Europe, while, standing here in my place, I 
pronounce my rebuke, as solemnly and as decisively as I can, 
upon this first instance in which an American minister has been 
sent abroad as the representative of his party, and not as the 
representative of his country. 


FURTHER REMARKS ON THE SAME SUBJECT.* 


In reply to some remarks of Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Webster spoke as 
follows : — 


Ir is, in my judgment, a great mistake to suppose that what 
is now called the American “pretension” originated with Mr. 
Adams, either as President or Secretary of State. By the way, 
it is singular enough that the American side of this question is 
called, in the instructions before us, a pretension too long persist- 
ed in; while the British side of it is called a right, too long and 
too tenaciously resisted by us. This courteous mode of speak- 
ng of the claims of a foreign government, and this reproachful 
node of speaking of the claims of our own, is certainly some- 
what novel in diplomacy. But whether it be called, respect- 
‘ully, a claim, or, reproachfully, a pretension, it did not originate 
with Mr. Adams. It had a much earlier origin. This “ pretens 


* In Secret Session of the Senate, on the 26th of January, 1832 


364 THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN 


sion,” now abandoned with so much scorn, or this claim, said, 
reproachfully, to have been first set up by the late admuinistra- 
tion, originated with George Washington. He put his own 
hand to it. He insisted on it; and he would not treat with 
England on the subject of the colonial trade without consid- 
ering it. 

In his instructions to Mr. Morris, under. his own hand, in 
October, 1789, President Washington says : — : 


‘‘ Let it be strongly impressed on your mind, that the privilege of car- 
rying our productions in our vessels to their islands, and bringing in re- 
turn the productions of those islands to our own ports and markets, is 
regarded here as of the highest importance ; and you will be careful not 
to countenance any idea of our dispensing with it in a treaty. Ascer- 
tain, if possible, their views on this subject; for it would not be expe- 
dient to commence negotiations without previously having good reasons 
to expect a satisfactory termination of them.” 


Observe, Sir, that President Washington, in these instruc- 
tions, is not speaking of the empty and futile right of sending 
our own vessels without cargoes to the British West Indies; 
but he is speaking of the substantial right of carrying our own 
products to the islands, for sale and for consumption there. 
And whether these products were shut out by a positive act of 
Parliament, or by a tariff of duties absolutely and necessarily 
prohibitory, could make no difference. The object was to pro- 
vide by treaty, if it could be done, that our products should find 
their way, effectually and profitably, into the markets of the 
British West Indies. This was General Washington’s amet: 
This was the “ pretension” which he set up. 

It is well known, Sir, that no satisfactory airmail was 
made in General Washington’s time respecting our trade with 
the British West Indies. But the breaking out of the French 
Revolution, and the wars which it occasioned, were causes 
which of themselves opened the ports of the West Indies. Dur- 
ing the long continuance of those wars, our vessels, with car- 
goes of our own products, found their way into the British West 
India Islands, under a practical relaxation of the British colonial 
system. While this condition of things lasted, we did very 
well without a particular treaty. But on the general restora- 
tion of peace, in 1815, Great Britain returned to her former 
system; then the islands were shut against us; and then it 


AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. 360 


became necessary to treat on the subject, and our ministers 
were, successively, instructed to treat, from that time forward. 
And, Sir, I undertake to say, that neither Mr. Madison, who 
was then President, nor his successor, Mr. Monroe, gave any 
authority or permission to any American minister to abandon 
this pretension, or even to waive it or postpone it, and make a 
treaty without providing for it. No such thing. On the con- 
trary, it will appear, I think, if we look through papers which 
have been sent to the Senate, that, under Mr. Madison’s admin- 
istration, our minister in England was fully instructed on this 
subject, and expected to press it. As to Mr. Monroe, I have 
means of being informed, in a manner not liable to mistake, 
that he was on this subject always immovable. He would not 
negotiate without treating on this branch of the trade; nor did 
I ever understand, that, in regard to this matter, there was any 
difference of opinion whatever among the gentlemen who com- 
posed Mr. Monroe’s cabinet. Mr. Adams, as Secretary of State, 
wrote the despatches and the instructions; but the policy was 
the policy of the whole administration, as far as I ever under- 
stood. Certain it is, it was the settled and determined policy of 
Mr. Monroe himself. Indeed, Sir, so far is it from being true 
that this pretension originated with Mr. Adams, that it was in 
his administration that, for the first time, permission was given, 
under very peculiar circumstances, and with instructions, to ne- 
gotiate a treaty, waiving this part of the question. This has 
been already alluded to, and fully explained, by the honorable 
member from Kentucky. 

So, then, Sir, this pretension, asserted in the instructions to 
have been first set up by the late administration, is shown to 
have had President Washington for its author, and to have re- 
ceived the countenance of every President who had occasion to 
act on the subject, from 1789 down to the time of the present 
administration. 

But this is not all. Congress itself has sanctioned the same 
“pretension.” The act of the 1st of March, 1823, makes it an 
express condition upon which, and upon which alone, our ports 
shall be opened to British vessels and cargoes from the West 
Indies on paying the same duties as our vessels and cargoes, that 
our products shall be admitted into those islands without paying any 
other or higher duties than shall be paid on similar productions 

ol* 


366 THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN 


coming from elsewhere. All this will be seen by reference to 
the third section of that act. Now remember, Sir, that this act 
of Congress passed in March, 1823, two years before the com- 
mencement of Mr. Adams’s administration. 'The act originated 
in the Senate. The honorable Senator from Maryland,* who 
has spoken on this subject to-day, was then a member of 
the Senate, and took part in the discussion of this very bill; 
and he supported it, and voted for it. It passed both houses, 
without material opposition in either. How is it possible, after 
referring to this law of 1823, to find any apology for the asser- 
tion contained in these instructions, that this claim is a preten- 
sion first set up by Mr. Adams’s administration? How is it 
possible that this law could have been overlooked or not remem- 
bered? In short, Sir, with any tolerable acquaintance with the 
history of the negotiations of the United States or their legisla- 
tion, how are we to account for it that such an assertion as 
these instructions contain should have found its way into them ? 

But the honorable member from Georgia asks why we lay 
all this to the charge of the Secretary, and not to the charge of 
the President. 'The answer is, the President’s conduct is not 
before us. We are not, and cannot become,*his accusers, even 
if we,thought there were any thing in his conduct which gave 
cause for accusation. But the Secretary is before us. Not 
brought before us by any act of ours, but placed before us by 
the President’s nomination. On that nomination we cannot 
decline to act. We must either confirm or reject it. As to the 
notion that the Secretary of State was but the instrument of the 
President, and so not responsible for these instructions, I reject 
at once all such defence, excuse, or apology, or whatever else it 
may be called. If there be any thing in a public despatch de- 
rogatory to the honor of the country, as I think there is in this, 
it is enough for me that I see whose hand is to it. If it be 
said, that the signer was only an instrument in the hands of 
others, I reply, that I cannot concur in conferring a high public 
diplomatic trust on any one who has consented, under any cir- 
cumstances, to be an instrument in such a case. 

The honorable member from Georgia asks, also, why we have 
élept on this subject, and why, at this late day, we bring forward 


* Mr. Smith. 


AS MINISTER TO ENGLAND. 367 


complaints. Sir, nobody has slept upon it. Since these in- 
structions have been made public, there has been no previous 
opportunity to discuss them. ‘The honorable member will rec- 
ollect, that the whole arrangement with England was made 
and completed before these instructions saw the light. ‘The 
President opened the trade by his proclamation, in October, 
1830; but these instructions were not publicly sent to Congress 
till long afterwards, that is, till January, 1831. They were not 
then sent with any view that either house should act upon the 
subject, for the whole business was already settled. For one, I 
never saw the instructions, nor heard them read, till January, 
1831; nor did I ever hear them spoken of as containing these 
obnoxious passages. ‘T’his, then, is the first opportunity for con- 
sidering these instructions. 

That they have been subjects of complaint out doors since 
they were made public, and of much severe animadversion, is 
certainly true. But, until now, there never has been an oppor- 
tunity naturally calling for their discussion here. The honora- 
ble gentleman may be assured, that, if such occasion had pre- 
sented itself, it would have been embraced. 

I entirely forbear, Mr. President, from going into the merits 
of the late arrangement with England, as a measure of commer- 
cial policy. Another time will come, I trust, more suitable for 
that discussion. For the present, I confine myself strictly to 
such parts of the instructions as I think plainly objectionable, 
whatever may be the character of the agreement between us 
and England, as matter of policy. I repeat, Sir, that I place 
the justification of my vote on the party tone and party charac- 
ter of these instructions. Let us ask, If such considerations as 
these are to be addressed to a foreign government, what is that 
foreign government to expect in return? The ministers of for- 
eign courts will not bestow gratuitous favors, nor even gratui- 
tous smiles, on American parties. What, then, I repeat, is to 
be the return? What is party to do for that foreign gov- 
ernment which has done, is expected to do, or is asked to 
do, something for party? What is to be the consideration 
paid for this foreign favor? Sir, must not every man see, that 
any mixture of such causes or motives of action in our foreign 
intercourse is as full of danger as it is of dishonor ? 

I will not pursue the subject. I am anxious only to make 


368 THE NOMINATION OF MR. VAN BUREN. 


my own ground fully and clearly understood; and willingly 
leave every other gentleman to his own opinions. And I cheer- 
fully submit my own vote to the opinions of the country. I will- 
ingly leave it to the people of the United States to say, whether 
I am acting a factious and unworthy part, or the part of a 
true-hearted American, in withholding my approbation from the 
nomination of a gentleman as minister to England, who has 
already, as it appears to me, instructed his predecessor at the 
same court to carry party considerations, to argue party merits, 
and solicit party favors, at the foot of the British throne. 


Note. — The circumstance did not occur to Mr. Webstev’s recollection 
at the moment he was speaking, but the truth is, that Mr. Van Buren 
was himself a member of the Senate at the very time of the passing 
of the law of 18238, and Mr. McLane was at the same time a member 
of the House of Representatives. So that Mr. Van Buren did himself 
certainly concur in ‘setting up this pretension,’’ two years before Mr, 
Adams became President. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION.* 


Tue object of the following report is to set forth the unjust operation 
of the rule by which the apportionment of Representatives had hitherto 
been made among the States, and was proposed to be made under 
the fifth census. Notwithstanding the manifest unequal operation of 
the rule, and the cogency of the arguments against it contained in this 
report, Congress could not be brought on this occasion, nor on that of 
the next decennial apportionment, to apply the proper remedy. 

In making provision for the apportionment under the census of 1850, 
the principles of this report prevailed. By the act of the 23d of May, 
1850, it is provided that the number of the new House shall be 233. 
The entire representative population of the United States is to be divided 
by this sum; and the quotient is the ratio of apportionment among the 
several States. Their representative population is in turn to be divided by 
this ratio ; and the loss of members arising from the residuary numbers 
is made up by assigning as many additional members as are necessary 
for that purpose to the States having the largest fractional remainders. 
It was a further very happy provision of the law of the 23d of May, 
1850, that this apportionment should be made by the Secretary of the 
Interior, after the returns of the census should have been made, and 
without the necessity of any further action on the part of Congress. 


Tue Select Committee, to whom was referred, on the 27th of 
March, the bill from the House of Representatives, entitled, 
“An Act for the Apportionment of Representatives among 
the several States according to the Fifth Census,” have had 
the subject under consideration, and now ask leave to report: 


Tuis bill, like all laws on the same subject, must be regarded 
as of an interesting and delicate nature. It respects the distri- 


* A Report on the Subject of the Apportionment of Representation, in the 
House of Representatives of the United States, made in the ‘Renate, on the 5th 
of April, 1832. 


370 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


bution of political power among the States of the Union. It is 
to determine the number of voices which, for ten years to come, 
each State is to possess in the popular branch of the legisla. 
ture. In the opinion of the committee, there can be few or no 
questions which it is more desirable to settle on just, fair, and 
satisfactory principles, than this; and, availing themselves of 
the benefit of the discussion which the bill has already under- 
gone in the Senate, they have given to it a renewed and anxious 
consideration. The result is, that, in their opinion, the bill 
ought to be amended. Seeing the difficulties which belong to 
the whole subject, they are fully convinced that the bill has been 
framed and passed in the other House with the sincerest desire 
to overcome these difficulties, and to enact a law which should 
do as much justice as possible to all the States. But the com- 
mittee are constrained to say, that this object appears to them 
not to have been attained. The unequal operation of the bill 
on some of the States, should it become a law, seems to the 
committee most manifest; and they cannot but express a doubt 
whether its actual apportionment of the representative power 
among the several States can be considered as conformable to 
the spirit of the Constitution. . 

The bill provides, that from and after the 3d of March, 1833, 
the House of Representatives shall be composed of members 
elected agreeably to a ratio of one Representative for every 
forty-seven thousand and seven hundred persons in each State, 
computed according to the rule prescribed by the Constitution. 
The addition of the seven hundred to the forty-seven thousand, 
in the composition of this ratio, produces no effect whatever in 
regard to the constitution of the House. It neither adds to nor 
takes from the number of members assigned to any State. Its 
only effect is a reduction of the apparent amount of the frac- 
tions, as they are usually called, or residuary numbers, after the 
application of the ratio. or all other purposes, the result is 
precisely the same as if the ratio had been forty-seven thou- 
sand. 

As it seems generally admitted that inequalities do exist in 
this bill, and that injurious consequences will arise from its op- 
eration, which it would be desirable to avert, if any proper 
means of averting them, without producing others equally in- 
jurious, could be found, the committee do not think it necessary 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 371 


to go into a full and particular statement of these consequences. 
They will content themselves with presenting a few examples 
only of these results, and such as they find it most difficult to 
reconcile with justice and the spirit. of the Constitution. 

In exhibiting these examples, the committee must necessarily 
speak of particular States; but it is hardly necessary to say, 
that they speak of them as examples only, and with the most 
perfect respect, not only for the States themselves, but for all 
those who represent them here. 

Although the bill does not commence by fixing the whole 
number of the proposed House of Representatives, yet the pro- 
cess adopted by it brings out the number of two hundred and 
forty members. Of these two hundred and forty members, forty 
are assigned to the State of New York; that is to say, precisely 
one sixth part of the whole. This assignment would seem to 
require that New York should contain one sixth part of the 
whole population of the United States, and should be bound 
to pay one sixth part of all direct taxes. Yet neither of these 
is the case. The whole representative population of the United 
States is 11,929,005; that of New York is 1,918,623, which is 
less than one sixth of the whole, by nearly 70,000. Of a direct 
tax of two hundred and forty thousand dollars, New York would 
pay only $38.59. 

But if, instead of comparing the numbers assigned to New 
York with the whole numbers of the House, we compare her 
with other States, the inequality is still more evident and strik- 
ing. To the State of Vermont the bill assigns five members. 
It gives, therefore, eight times as many Representatives to New 
York as to Vermont; but the population of New York is not 
equal to eight times the population of Vermont, by more than 
three hundred thousand. Vermont has five members only for 
280,657 persons. If the same proportion were to be applied to 
New York, it would reduce the number of her members from 
forty to thirty-four, making a difference more than equal to the 
whole representation of Vermont, and more than sufficient to 
overcome her whole power in the House of Representatives. 

A disproportion almost equally striking is manifested, if we 
compare New York with Alabama. ‘The population of Alabama 
is 262,203; for this she is allowed five members. The rule of 
proportion which gives to her but five members for her number, 


372 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


would give to New York but thirty-six for her number. | Yet 
New York receives forty. As compared with Alabama, then, 
New York has an excess of representation equal to four fifths 
of the whole representation of Alabama; and this excess itself 
will give her, of course, as much weight in the House as the 
whole delegation of Alabama, within a single vote. Can it 
be said, then, that Representatives are apportioned to these 
States according to their respective numbers? 

The ratio assumed by the bill, it will be perceived, leaves 
large fractions, so called, or residuary numbers, in several of 
the small States, to the manifest loss of a great part of their 
just proportion of representative power. Such is the operation 
of the ratio, in this respect, that New York, with a popula- 
tion less than that of New England by thirty or thirty-five 
thousand, has yet two more members than all the New Eng- 
land States; and there are seven States in the Union, repre- 
sented, according to the bill, by one hundred and twenty-three 
members, being a clear majority of the whole House, whose 
ageregate fractions, all together, amount only to fifty-three thou- 
sand; while Vermont and New Jersey, having together but 
eleven members, have a joint fraction of seventy-five thousand. 

Pennsylvania, by the bill, will have, as it happens, just as 
many members as Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
and New Jersey; but her population is not equal to theirs by 
a hundred and thirty thousand; and the reason of this advan- 
tage, derived to her from the provision of the bill, is, that 
her fraction, or residuum, is twelve thousand only, while theirs 
is a hundred and forty- -four thousand. 

But the subject is capable of being presented in a more ex- 
act and mathematical form. ‘The House is to consist of two 
hundred and forty members. Now, the precise portion of pow- 
er, out of the whole mass presented by the number of two 
hundred and forty, to which New York would be entitled 
according to her population, is 38.59; that is to say, she would 
be entitled to thirty-eight members, and would have a residuum 
or fraction; and even if a member were given her for that 
fraction, she would still have but thirty-nine. But the bill gives 
her forty. 

These are a part, and but a part, of those results, produced by 
the bill in its present form, which the committee cannot bring 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 373 


themselves to approve. While it is not to be denied, that, under 
any rule of apportionment, some degree of relative inequality 
must always ‘exist, the committee cannot believe that the Sen- 
ate will sanction inequality and injustice to the extent in which 
they exist in this bill, if it can be avoided. But, recollecting 
the opinions which had been expressed in the discussions of the 
Senate, the committee have diligently sought to learn whether 
there was not some other number which might be taken fora 
ratio, the application of which would produce more justice and 
equality. In this pursuit, the committee have not been success- 
ful. There are, it is true, other numbers, the adoption of which 
would relieve many of the States which suffer under the pres- 
ent; but this relief would be obtained only by shifting the 
pressure to other States, thus creating new grounds of com- 
plaint in other quarters. ‘The number 44,000 has been gen- 
erally spoken of as the most acceptable substitute for 47,700; 
but should this be adopted, great relative inequality would fall 
on several States, and, among them, on some of the new and 
growing States, whose relative disproportion, thus already great, 
would be constantly increasing. 

The committee, therefore, are of opinion that the bill should be 
altered in the mode of apportionment. They think that the pro- 
cess which begins by assuming a ratio should be abandoned, and 
that the bill ought to be framed on the principle of the amend- 
ment which has been the main subject of discussion before the 
Senate. The fairness of the principle of this amendment, and 
the general equity of its results, compared with those which flow 
from the other process, seem plain and undeniable. ‘The main 
question has been, whether the principle itself be constitutional s. 
and this question the committee proceed to examine, respectfully 
asking of those who have doubted its constitutional propriety 
to consider the question of so much importance as to justify a 
second reflection. 

The words of the Constitution are, — 


** Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the 
several States, which may be included within this Union, according to- 
their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the 
whole number of free persons, including those bound to service fora 
term of years, and excluding Indians, three fifths of all other persons. 
The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first 

VOL. III. 32 


> 


374 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subse- 
quent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. 
The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty 
thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative.” 


There would seem to be little difficulty in understanding these 
provisions. The terms used are designed, doubtless, to be re- 
ceived in no peculiar or technical sense, but according to their 
common and popular acceptation. ‘To apportion is to distribute 
by right measure, to set off in just parts, to assign in due and 
proper proportion. These clauses of the Constitution respect 
not only the portions of power, but the portions of the public 
burden, also, which should fall to the several States; and the 
same language is applied to both. Representatives are to be 
apportioned among the States according to their respective num- 
bers, and direct taxes are to be apportioned by the same rule. 
The end aimed at is, that representation and taxation should go 
hand in hand; that each State should be represented in the same 
extent to which it is made subject to the public charges by direct 
taxation. But between the apportionment of Representatives 
and the apportionment of taxes, there necessarily exists one es- 
sential difference. Representation founded on numbers must 
have some limit, and being, from its nature, a thing not capable 
of indefinite subdivision, it cannot be made precisely equal. A 
tax, indeed, cannot always, or often, be apportioned with perfect 
exactness; as in other matters of account, there will be frac- 
tional parts of the smallest coins, and the smallest denomination 
of money of account; yet, by the usual subdivisions of the coin, 
and of the denominations of money, the apportionment of taxes 
is capable of being made so exact, that the inequality becomes 
minute and invisible. But representation cannot be thus di- 
vided. Of representation, there can be nothing less than one 
Representative; nor, by our Constitution, more Representatives 
than one for every thirty thousand. It is quite obvious, there- 
fore, that the apportionment of representative power can never 
be precise and perfect. ‘There must always exist some degree 
of inequality. Those who framed and those who adopted the 
Constitution were, of course, fully acquainted with this neces- 
sary operation of the provision. In the Senate, the States are 
entitled to a fixed number of Senators; and therefore, in regard 
to their representation in that body, there is no consequential 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 375 


or incidental inequality. But, being represented in the House 
of Representatives according to their respective numbers of 
people, it is unavoidable that, in assigning to each State its 
number of members, the exact proportion of each, out of a given 
number, cannot always or often be expressed in whole num- 
bers; that is to say, it will not often be found that there be- 
longs to a State exactly one tenth, or one twentieth, or one thir- 
tieth of the whole House; and therefore no number of Repre- 
sentatives will exactly correspond with the right of such State, 
or the precise share of representation which belongs to it, accord- 
ing to its population. 

The Constitution, therefore, must be understood, not as enjoin- 
ing an absolute relative equality, because that would be de- 
manding an impossibility, but as requiring of Congress to make 
the apportionment of Representatives among the several States 
according to their respective numbers, as near as may be. That 
which cannot be done perfectly must be done in a manner as 
near perfection as can be. If exactness cannot, from the nature 
of things, be attained, then the nearest practicable approach to 
exactness ought to be made. 

Congress is not absolved from all rule merely because the rule 
of perfect justice cannot be applied. In such a case, approx- 
imation becomes a rule; it takes the place of that other rule, 
which would be preferable, but which is found inapplicable, and 
becomes itself an obligation of binding force. The nearest ap- 
proximation to exact truth or exact right, when that exact truth 
or that exact right cannot itself be reached, prevails in other 
cases, not as matter of discretion, but as an intelligible and defi- 
nite rule, dictated by justice and conforming to the common 
sense of mankind; a rule of no less binding force in cases to 
which it is applicable, and no more to be departed from, than 
any other rule or obligation. 

The committee understand the Constitution as they would 
have understood it if it had said, in so many words, that Repre- 
sentatives should be apportioned among the States according to 
their respective numbers, as near as may be. If this be not its 
true meaning, then it has either given, on this most delicate and 
important subject, a rule which is always impracticable, or else 
it has given no rule at all; because, if the rule be that Repre- 
sentatives shall be apportioned exactly according to numbers, it is 


376 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


impracticable in every case; and if, for this reason, that cannot © 
be the rule, then there is no rule whatever, unless the rule be — 
that they shall be apportioned as near as may be. 

This construction, indeed, which the committee adopt, has 
not, to their knowledge, been denied; and they proceed in the 
discussion of the question before the Senate, taking for granted 
that such is the true and undeniable meaning of the Consti- 
tution. 

The next thing to be observed is, that the Constitution pre- 
scribes no particular process by which this apportionment is to be 
wrought out. It has plainly described the end to be accom- 
plished, namely, the nearest approach to relative equality of rep- 
resentation among the States; and whatever accomplishes this 
end, and nothing else, is the true process. In truth, if, without 
any process whatever, whether elaborate or easy, Congress could 
perceive the exact proportion of representative power rightfully 
belonging to each State, it would perfectly fulfil its duty by con- 
ferring that portion on each, without reference to any process 
whatever. It would be enough that the proper end had been 
attained. And it is to be remarked, further, that, whether this 
end be attained best by one process or by another, becomes, 
when each process has been carried through, not matter of opin- 
ion, but matter of mathematical certainty. If the whole popu- 
lation of the United States, the population of each State, and 
the proposed number of the House of Representatives, be all 
given, then, between two bills apportioning the members among 
the several States, it can be told with absolute certainty which 
bill assigns to any and every State the number nearest to the 
exact proportion of that State; in other words, which of the two 
bills, if either, apportions the Representatives according to the 
numbers in the States, respectively, as near as may be. If, there- 
fore, a particular process of apportionment be adopted, and ob- 
jection be made to the injustice or inequality of its result, it is 
surely no answer to such objection to say, that the inequality 
necessarily results from the nature of the process. Before such 
answer could avail, it would be necessary to show, either that 
the Constitution prescribes such process, and makes it necessary, 
or that there is no other mode of proceeding which would pro- 
duce less inequality and less injustice. If inequality, which 
might have otherwise been avoided, be produced by a given 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 377 


process, then that process is a wrong one. It is not suited to 
the case, and should be rejected. 

Nor do the committee perceive how it can be matter of 
constitutional propriety or validity, or in any way a constitu- 
tional question, whether the process which may be applied to 
the case be simple or compound, one process or many processes ; 
since, in the end, it may always be seen whether the result be 
that which has been aimed at, namely, the nearest practicable 
approach to precise justice and relative equality. ‘The commit- 
tee, indeed, are of opinion, in this case, that the simplest and 
most obvious way of proceeding is also the true and constitu- 
tional way. ‘To them it appears, that, in carrying into effect 
this part of the Constitution, the first thing naturally to be done 
is to decide on the whole number of which the House is to be 
composed; as when, under the same clause of the Constitution, 
a tax is to be apportioned among the States, the amount of the 
whole tax is, in the first place, to be settled. 

When the whole number of the proposed House is thus ascer- 
tained and fixed, it becomes the entire representative power of 
all the people in the Union. It is then a very simple matter to 
ascertain how much of this representative power each State is 
entitled to by its numbers. If, for example, the House is to con- 
tain two hundred and forty members, then the number 240 ex- 
presses the representative power of all the States; and a plain 
calculation readily shows how much of this power belongs to 
each State. This portion, it is true, will not always, nor often, 
be expressed in whole numbers, but it may always be precisely 
exhibited by a decimal form of expression. If the portion of 
any State be seldom or never one exact tenth, one exact fif- 
teenth, or one exact twentieth, it will still always be capable of 
precise decimal expression, as one tenth and two hundredths, one 
twelfth and four hundredths, one fifteenth and six hundredths, 
and so on. And the exact portion of the State, being thus deci- 
mally expressed, will always show, to mathematical certainty, 
what integral number comes nearest to such exact portion. For 
example, in a House consisting of 240 members, the exact 
mathematical proportion to which her numbers entitle the State 
of New York is 38.59; it is certain, therefore, that 39 is the in- 
tegral or whole number nearest to her exact proportion of the 
representative power of the Union. Why, then, should she not 

52* 


378 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


have thirty-nine? and why should she have forty? She is not 
quite entitled to thirty-nine; that number is something more 
than her right. But allowing her thirty-nine, from the necessity 
of giving her whole numbers, and because that is the nearest 
whole number, is not the Constitution fully obeyed when she has 
received the thirty-ninth member? Is not her proper number 
of Representatives then apportioned to her, as near as may be? 
And is not the Constitution disregarded when the bill goes fur- 
ther, and gives her a fortieth member? For what is such a for- 
tieth member given? Not for her absolute numbers, for her ab- 
solute numbers do not entitle her to thirty-nine. Not for the sake 
of apportioning her members to her numbers as near as may be, 
because thirty-nine is a nearer apportionment of members to 
numbers than forty. But it is given, say the advocates of the 
bill, because the process which has been adopted gives it. The 
answer is, No such process is enjoined by the Constitution. 
The case of New York may be compared, or contrasted, with 
that of Missouri. The exact proportion of Missouri, in a gen- 
eral representation of 240, is two and six tenths; that is to say, 
it comes nearer to three members than to two, yet it is confined 
to two. But why is not Missouri entitled to that number of 
Representatives which comes nearest to her exact proportion? 
Is the Constitution fulfilled as to her, while that number is with- 
held, and while, at the same time, in another State, not only is 
that nearest number given, but an additional member given 
also? Is it an answer with which the people of Missouri ought 
to be satisfied, when it is said that this obvious injustice is the 
necessary result of the process adopted by the bill? May they 
not say with propriety, that, since three is the nearest whole 
number to their exact right, to that number they are entitled, 
and the process which deprives them of it must be a wrong 
process? A similar comparison might be made between New 
York and Vermont. The exact proportion to which Vermont 
is entitled, in a representation of 240, is 5.646. Her nearest 
whole number, therefore, would be six. Now two things are 
undeniably true; first, that to take away the fortieth member from 
New York would bring her representation nearer to her exact 
proportion than it stands by leaving her that fortieth member; 
second, that giving the member thus taken from New York to 
Vermont would bring her representation nearer to her exact 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 379 


right than it is by the bill) And both these propositions are 
equally true of a transfer to Delaware of the twenty-eighth mem- 
ber assigned by the bill to Pennsylvania, and to Missouri of 
the thirteenth member assigned to Kentucky. In other words, 
Vermont has, by her numbers, more right to six members than 
New York has to forty; Delaware, by her numbers, has more 
right to two members than Pennsylvania has to twenty-eight; 
and Missouri, by her numbers, has more right to three members 
than Kentucky has to thirteen. Without disturbing the pro- 
posed number of the House, the mere changing of these three 
members from and to the six States, respectively, would bring 
the representation of the whole six nearer to their due propor- 
tion, according to their respective numbers, than the bill in its 
present form makes it. In the face of this indisputable truth, 
how can it be said that the bill apportions members of Congress 
among those States according to their respective numbers, as 
near as may be ? | | 

The principle on which the proposed amendment is founded 
is an effectual corrective for these and all other equally great in- 
equalities. It may be applied at all times, and in all cases, and 
its result will always be the nearest approach to perfect justice. 
It is equally simple and impartial. As a rule of apportionment, 
it is little other than a transcript of the words of the Constitu- 
tion, and its results are mathematically certain. ‘The Constitu- 
tion, as the committee understand it, says, Representatives shall 
be apportioned among the States according to their respective 
numbers of people, as near as may be. The rule adopted by 
the committee says, out of the whole number of the House, that 
number shall be apportioned to each State which comes nearest 
to its exact right according to its number of people. 

Where is the repugnancy between the Constitution and the 
rule? The arguments against the rule seem to assume, that 
there is a necessity of instituting some process, adopting some 
number as the ratio, or as that number of people which each 
member shall be understood to represent. But the committee 
see no occasion for any other process whatever, than simply the 
ascertainment of that quantum, out of the whole mass of the rep- 
resentative power, which each State may claim. 

But it is said that, although a State may receive a number 
of Representatives which is something less than its exact pro- 


80 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


portion of representation, yet that it can in no case constitution- 
ally receive more. How is this proposition proved? How is it 
shown that the Constitution is less perfectly fulfilled by allow- 
ing a State a small excess, than by subjecting her to a large de- 
ficiency? What the Constitution requires is the nearest practi- 
cable approach to precise justice. The rule is approximation ; 
and we ought to approach, therefore, on whichever side we can 
approach nearest. 

But there is a still more conclusive answer to be given to this 
suggestion. The whole number of Representatives of which 
the House is to be composed is, of necessity, limited. ‘This 
number, whatever it is, is that which is to be apportioned, and 
nothing else can be apportioned. ‘This is the whole sum to be 
distributed. If, therefore, in making the apportionment, some 
States receive less than their just share, it must necessarily fol- 
low that some other States have received more than their just 
share. If there be one State in the Union with less than its 
right, some other State has more than its right; so that the ar- 
eument, whatever be its force, applies to the bill in its present 
form, as strongly as it can ever apply to any bill. 

But the objection most usually urged against the principle of 
the proposed amendment is, that it provides for the representa- 
tion of fractions. Let this objection be examined and consid- 
ered. Let it be ascertained, in the first place, what these frac- 
tions, or fractional numbers, or residuary numbers, really are, 
which it is said will be represented, should the amendment 
prevail. 

A fraction is the broken part of some integral number. It is, 
therefore, a relative or derivative idea. It implies the previous 
existence of some fixed number, of which it is but a part or re- 
mainder. If there be no necessity for fixing or establishing 
such previous number, then the fraction resulting from it is itself 
not matter of necessity, but matter of choice or accident. Now, 
the argument which considers the plan proposed in the amend- 
ment as a representation of fractions, and therefore unconstitu- 
tional, assumes as its basis, that, according to the Constitution, 
every member of the House of Representatives represents, or 
ought to represent, the same, or nearly the same, number of con- 
stituents; that this number is to be regarded as an integer; and 
any thing less than this is therefore called a fraction, or a residu- 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 381 


um, and cannot be entitled to a Representative. But nothing 
of this is prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. 
That Constitution contemplates no integer, or any common 
number for the constituents of a member of the House of Rep- 
resentatives. It goes not at all into these subdivisions of the 
population of a State: It provides for the apportionment of 
Representatives among the several States, according to their re- 
spective numbers, and stops there. It makes no provision for 
the representation of districts of States, or for the representation 
of any portion of the people of a State less than the whole. It 
says nothing of ratios or of constituent numbers. All these 
things it leaves to State legislation. 'The right which each State 
possesses to its own due portion of the representative power is 
a State right, strictly. It belongs’to the State, as a State; and 
it is to be used and exercised as the State may see fit, sub- 
ject only to the constitutional qualifications of electors. In fact, 
the States do make, and always have made, different provisions 
for the exercise of this power. In some, a single member is 
chosen for a certain defined district; in others, two or three 
members are chosen for the same district; and in some, again, 
as New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, 
and Georgia, the entire representation of the State is a joint 
and undivided representation. In each of these last-mentioned 
States, every member of the House of Representatives has for 
his constituents all the people of the State; and all the peo- 
ple of those States are consequently represented in that branch 
of Congress. 

If the bill before the Senate should pass into a law, in its 
present form, whatever injustice it might do to any of those 
States, it would not be correct to say of them, nevertheless, that 
any portion of their people was unrepresented. ‘The well-founded 
objection would be, as to some of them at least, that they were 
not adequately, competently, fairly represented; that they had 
not as many voices and as many votes in the House of Repre- 
sentatives as they were entitled to. ‘This would be the objec- 
tion. There would be no unrepresented fraction ; but the State, 
as a State, as a whole, would be deprived of some part of its, 
just rights. 

On the other hand, if the bill should pass as it is now pro- 
posed to be amended, there would be no representation of frac- 


O82 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


tions in any State; for a fraction supposes a division and a 
remainder. All that could justly be said would be, that some of 
these States, as States, possessed a portion of legislative power 
a little larger than their exact right; as it must be admitted, 
that, should the bill pass unamended, they would possess of that 
power much less than their exact right. The same remarks 
are substantially true, if applied to those States which adopt the 
district system, as most of them do. In Missouri, for example, 
there will be no fraction unrepresented, should the bill become a 
law in its present form; nor any member for a fraction, should 
the amendment prevail. Because the mode of apportionment 
which is nearest to its exact right applies no assumed ratios, 
raakes no subdivisions, and, of course, produces no fractions. 
In the one case, or in the other, the State, as a State, will have 
something more, or something less, than its exact proportion of 
representative power; but she will part out this power among 
her own people, in either case, in such mode as she may choose, 
or exercise it altogether as an entire representation of the people 
of the State. 

Whether the subdivision of the representative power within 
any State, if there be a subdivision, be equal or unequal, or 
fairly or unfairly made, Congress cannot know, and has no au- 
thority to inquire. It is enough that the State presents her own 
representation on the floor of Congress in the mode she chooses 
to present it. If a State were to give to one portion of her 
territory a Representative for every twenty-five thousand per- 
sons, and to the rest a Representative only for every fifty thou- 
sand, it would be an act of unjust legislation, doubtless; but it 
would be wholly beyond redress by any power in Congress, be- 
cause the Constitution has left all this to the State itself. 

These considerations, it is thought, may show that the Con- 
stitution has not, by any implication or necessary construction, 
enjoined that which it certainly has not ordained in terms, 
namely, that every rnember of the House should be supposed to 
represent the same number of constituents; and therefore, that 
the assumption of a ratio, as representing the common number 
of constituents, is not called for by the Constitution. All that 
Congress is at liberty to do, as it would seem, is to divide the ° 
whole representative power of the Union into twenty-four parts, 
assigning one part to each State, as near as practicable accord- 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 383 


ing to its right, and leaving all subsequent arrangement, and all 
subdivisions, to the State itself. 

If the view thus taken of the rights of the States and the du- 
ties of Congress be the correct view, then the plan proposed in 
the amendment is in no just sense a representation of fractions. 
But suppose it was otherwise; suppose a direct provision were 
made for allowing a Representative to every Sfate in whose 
population, it being first divided by a common ratio, there 
should be found a fraction exceeding half the amount of that 
ratio, what constitutional objection could be fairly urged against 
such a provision? Let it always be remembered, that the case 
here supposed provides only for a fraction exceeding the moiety 
of the ratio; for the committee admit at once that the repre- 
sentation of fractions less than a moiety is unconstitutional ; 
because, should a member be allowed to a State for such a frac- 
tion, it would be certain that her representation would not be so 
near her exact right as it was before. But the allowance of a 
member for a major fraction is a direct approximation towards 
justice and equality. ‘There appears to the committee to be 
nothing, either in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, op- 
posed to such a mode of apportionment. On the contrary, it 
seems entirely consistent with the very object which the Consti- 
tution contemplated, and well calculated to accomplish it. ‘The 
argument commonly urged against it 1s, that it is necessary to 
apply some one common divisor, and to abide by its results. 

If by this it be meant that there must be some common rule, 
or common measure, applicable, and applied impartially, to all 
the States, it is quite true. But if that which is’ intended be, 
that the population of each State must be divided by a fixed 
ratio, and all resulting fractions, great or small, disregarded, this 
is but to take for granted the very thing in controversy. ‘The 
question is, whether it be unconstitutional to make approxima- 
tion to equality by allowing Representatives for major fractions. 
The affirmative of this question is, indeed, denied, but it is not 
disproved, by saying that we must abide by the operation of di- 
vision by an assumed ratio, and disregard fractions. ‘The ques- 
tion still remains as it was before, and it is still to be shown 
what there is in the Constitution which rejects approximation 
as the rule of apportionment. 

But suppose it to be necessary to find a divisor, and to abide 


384 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


its results. What is a divisor? Not necessarily a simple num- 
ber. It may be composed of a whole number and a fraction; 
it may itself be the result of a previous process; it may be 
any thing, in short, which produces accurate and uniform divis- 
ion. Whatever does this is a common rule, a common stand- 
ard, or, if the word be important, a common divisor. The com- 
mittee refer, on this part of the case, to some observations by 
Professor Dean, with a table, both of which accompany this 
report. 

As it is not improbable that opinion has been a good deal in- 
fluenced on this subject by what took place on the passing of 
the first act making an apportionment of Representatives among 
the States, the committee have examined and considered that 
precedent. If it be in point to the present case, it is certainly 
entitled to very great weight; but if it be of questionable appli- 
cation, the text of the Constitution, even if it were doubtful, 
cannot be explained by a doubtful commentary. In the opin- 
ion of the committee, it is only necessary that what was said on 
this occasion should be understood in connection with the sub- 
ject-matter then under consideration; and in order to see what 
that subject-matter really was, the committee think it necessary’ 
shortly to state the case. 

The two houses of Congress passed a bill, after the first enu- 
meration of the people, providing for a House of Representatives 
which should consist of 120 members. ‘The bill expressed no 
rule or principle by which these members were assigned to the 
several States. It merely said that New Hampshire should 
have five members, Massachusetts ten, and so on; going through 
all the States, and assigning the whole number ft: one hundred 
and twenty. Now, by the census then recently taken, it ap- 
peared that the whole representative population of the United 
States was 3,615,920; and it was evidently the wish of Congress 
to make the House as numerous as the Constitution would 
allow. But the Constitution provides that there shall not be 
more than one member for every thirty thousand persons. 

This prohibition was, of couse, to be obeyed; but did the 
Constitution mean that no State should have more than one 
member for every thirty thousand persons? Or did it only 
mean that the whole House, as compared with the whole popu- 
lation of the United States, should not contain more than one 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 380 


member for every thirty thousand persons? If this last were 
the true construction, then the bill, in that particular, was right; 
if the first were the true construction, then it was wrong; bal 
cause so many members could not be assigned to the States, 
without giving to some of them more members than one for 
every thirty thousand. In fact, the bill did propose to do this in 
regard to several States. 

President Washington adopted that construction of the Con- 
stitution which applied its prohibition to each State individually. 
He thought that no State could constitutionally receive more 
than one member for every thirty thousand of her population. 
On this, therefore, his main objection to the bill was founded. 
That objection he states in these words : — 

“'The Constitution has also provided that the number of Rep- 
resentatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand ; 
which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious con- 
struction, to be applied to the separate and respective numbers 
of the States; and the bill has allotted to eight of the States. 
more than one for every thirty thousand.” 

It is now necessary to see what there was further atipusisbe 
able in this bill. ‘I'he number of one hundred and twelve mem- 
bers was all that could be divided among the States, without 
giving to some of them more than one member for thirty thou- 
sand inhabitants. Therefore, having allotted these one hundred 
and twelve, there still remained eight of the one hundred and 
twenty to be assigned; and these eight the bill assigned to the 
States having the largest fractions. Some of these fractions 
were large, and some were small. No regard was paid to frac- 
tions over a moiety of the ratio, any more than to fractions 
under it. There was no rule laid down, stating what fractions 
should entitle the States to whom they might happen to fall, or 
in whose population they might happen to be found, to a Repre- 
sentative therefor. ‘The assignment was not made on the prin- 
ciple that each State should have a member for a fraction greater 
than half the ratio; or that all the States should have a member 
for a fraction, in all cases where the allowance of such member 
would bring her representation nearer to its exact proportion 
than its disallowance. ‘There was no common measure or com- 
mon rule adopted, but the assignment was matter of arbitrary 
discretion. A member was allowed to New Hampshire, for ex- 

VOL. III. 33 


336 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


ample, for a fraction of less than one half the ratio; thus placing 
her representation farther from her exact proportion than it was 
without such additional member; while a member was refused 
to Georgia, whose case closely resembled that of New Hamp- 
shire, both having what were thought large fractions, but both 
still under a moiety of the ratio, and distinguished from each 
other only by a very slight difference of absolute numbers. ‘The 
committee have already fully expressed their opinion on such a 
mode of apportionment. 

In regard to this character of the bill, President Washington 
said: “'The Constitution has prescribed that Representatives 
shall be apportioned among the several States according to their 
respective numbers; and there is no one proportion or divisor, 
which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will 
yield the number and allotment of Representatives proposed by 
the bill.” 

This was all undoubtedly true, and was, in the judgment of 
the committee, a decisive objection against the bill. It is, never- 
theless, to be observed, that the other objection completely cov- 
ered the whole ground. There could, in that bill, be no allowance 
for a fraction, great or small; because Congress had taken for 
the ratio the lowest number allowed by the Constitution, viz. 
thirty thousand. Whatever fraction a State might have less 
than that ratio, no member could be allowed for it. It is searce- 
ly necessary to observe, that no such objection applies to the 
ameudment now proposed. No State, should the amendment 
prevail, will have a greater number of members than one for 
every thirty thousand; nor is it likely that the objection will ever 
again occur. ‘The whole force of the precedent, whatever it be, 
in its application to the present case, is drawn from the other 
objection. And what is the true import of that objection ? 
Does it mean any thing more than that the apportionment was 
not made on a common rule or principle, applicable and ap- 
plied alike to all the States? 

President Washington’s words are: “ ‘There is no one propor- 
tion or divisor, which, applied to the respective numbers of the 
States, will yield the number and allotment of Representatives 
proposed by the bill.” 

If, then, he could have found a common proportion, it would 
have removed this objection. He required a proportion or 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION, 387 


divisor. These words he evidently uses as explanatory of each 
other. He meant by divisor, therefore, no more than by propor- 
tion. What he sought was some common and equal rule, by 
which the allotment had been made among the several States; 
he did not find such common rule; and, on that ground, he 
thought the bill objectionable. 

In the opinion of the committee, no such objection applies to 
the amendment recommended by them. That amendment gives 
a rule, plain, simple, just, uniform, and of universal application. 
The rule has been frequently stated. It may be clearly expressed 
in either of two ways. Let the rule be, that the whole number 
of the proposed House shall be apportioned among the several 
States according to their respective numbers, giving to each State 
that number of members which comes nearest to her exact mathe- 
matical part or proportion; or let the rule be, that the population 
of each State shall be divided by a common divisor, and, in 
addition to the number of members resulting from such division, 
a member shall be allowed to each State whose fraction exceeds a 
moiety of the divisor. 

Hither of these is, it seems to the committee, a fair and just 
rule, capable of uniform application, and operating with entire 
impartiality. There is no want of a common proportion, or a 
common divisor; there is nothing left to arbitrary discretion. If 
the rule, in either of these forms, be adopted, it can never be 
doubtful how every member of any proposed number for a House 
of Representatives ought to be assigned. Nothing will be left 
in the discretion of Congress; the right of each State will bea 
mathematical right, easily ascertained, about which there can be 
neither doubt nor difficulty ; and, in the application of the rule, 
there will be no room for preference, partiality, or injustice. In 
any case, in all time to come, it will do all that human means 
can do to allot to every State in the Union its proper and just 
proportion of representative power. And it is because of this, 
its capability of constant application, as well as because of its 
impartiality and justice, that the committee are earnest in rec- 
ommending its adoption by Congress. If it shall be adopted, 
they believe it will remove a cause of uneasiness and dissatis- 
faction, recurring, or liable to recur, with every new census, and 
place the rights of the States, in this respect, on a fixed basis, 
of which none can with reason complain. It is true, that there 


388 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


may be some numbers assumed for the composition of the 
House of Representatives, to which, if the rule were applied, 
the result might give a member to the House more than was 
proposed. But it will be always easy to correct this by altering 
the proposed number by adding one to it, or taking one from it; 
so that this can be considered no objection to the rule. 

The committee, in conclusion, cannot admit that it is suffi- 
cient reason for rejecting this mode of apportionment, that a dif- 
ferent process has heretofore prevailed. 'The truth is, the errors 
and inequalities of that process were at first not obvious and 
startling. But they have gone on increasing; they are greatly 
augmented and accumulated at every new census; and it is of 
the very nature of the process itself, that its unjust results must 
grow greater and greater in proportion as the population of the 
country enlarges. What was objectionable, though tolerable, 
yesterday, becomes intolerable to-morrow. A change, the com- 
mittee are persuaded, must come, or the whole just balance and 
proportion of representative power among the States will be dis- 
turbed and broken up. 





Ay Ps DacECON eh Tee 


(See p. 384.) 


Extract of a Letter from Professor James Dean. 


‘‘] cannot express my rule so densely and perspicuously as I could 
wish ; but its meaning is, that each State shall have such a number of 
Representatives, that the population for each shall be the nearest possi- 
ble, whether over or under, to[ J]. The number for each State may 
be ascertained thus: Divide the representative number by the number 
assumed to fill the blank, disregarding the remainder; the quotient, or 
the next greater number, will be the number of Representatives. In 
order to determine which is the proper one, divide the representative 
number of the State by the two numbers separately, then subtract the 
least quotient from the assumed number, and the assumed number from 
the other quotient ; and that from which results the least remainder is 
the number of Representatives for the State.” 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 389 


The foregoing rule is illustrated thus: The. population of Maine, 
for instance, which is 399,435, being divided by 47,700, the ratio as- 
sumed in the bill from the House of Representatives, gives a quotient 
of 8; the population being then divided by 8, the quotient is 49,929; 
divide by 9, the next higher number, the quotient is 44,381. 

The following table exhibits the results in the several States, accord- 
ing to this process. 








| Se ee eo eee es |) 
Es 2 2 2 5 A 
23 g g iS 5 ae 
he Sy} so |S] 28 | Bs 
States. a3 = > a > S he 33 
ee [Sg] es (se] ee | 38 
cia) 3 2 3 a3 9 & 
| ca lB gree me gs 
| te ay bot lo ler bazyrs | af 
| Maine, PRG SS Sey) mapeiasy) Me 49,909 +" 91 auIsr 8 
|New Hampshire, . . ° 269,326 6 | 44,887 5 | 53,805, ],., 5 
Massachusetts, —. - : ; 610,407 | 13 | 46,954 | 12 | 50,867 12 
| Rhode Island, . ‘ é A 97,194 2 | 48,599 3 | 32,883 2 
| Connecticut, , : 297,665 6 | 49,610 7 | 42,523 6 
| Vermont, ry, Severe Ok 280,657 | 6|48,776| 51|56132| 5 
New York, . ; d . -| 1,918,553 | 40 | 47,964 | 41 | 46,794] 40 
New Jersey, . . . . 319,922 | 7145970] 6] 33,320] 6 
Pennsylvania, . ‘ : .| 1,848,072 | 28 | 46,145 | 29 | 46,485 | 28 
| Delaware, : : 5 : 75,432 2 | 37,716 4:1.75,432 I 
Maryland, . b : : : 405,843 9 | 45,049 8 | 50,435 8 
Retina) °F febiy, 4G 1,023,503 | 21 | 48,738 | 22] 45,613 | 21 
North Carolina, . P : ‘ 639,747 | 13 | 49,211 14 | 45,669 |} 18 
South Carolina, : ‘ ‘ 455,025 | 10 | 45,502 9 | 50,558 9 
Reh e shie ont ay) fe A29,811 9 | 47,746 | 10 | 42,981 9 
a 621,832 | 13 | 47,883} 14| 44,416] 13 
Tennessee, . é = ‘ , 625,263 | 13 | 48,097 | 14 | 44,061 13 
Ohio, i ° ° 3 . 935,882 20 | 46,794 19 | 49,251 19 
nee). UT 6"sdsso | 7 |-49.004.| .8 | 49878). 7 

Mississippi, . : ‘ : 110,358 2 | 55,129 3 | 36,766 

Illinois, ; ° . . 157,147 3 | 52,362 4 | 39.283 3 
eC Ct‘ 171,904] 4] 42927| 3 | 57,301 3 
Missouri, . ‘ . . / 130,419 38.| 43,473 2 | 65,209 2 
Alabama, t " * é 262,508 6 | 43,751 5 | 52,501 5 
} Totals, . 4. -  ~ | 11,928,054 | 251 bik. Ser RS8 bins. |: B40 


Nore. — The principle laid down by Professor Dean appears to be 
this: Each State should have that share of representation which bears 
the nearest possible proportion to the ratio assumed. 

Thus Massachusetts, with 610,000 people, if the ratio be 47,700, 
should have 13 Representatives, because 13 bears the nearest possible 
proportion to 47,700. 

As 13 is to 1, so is 610,000 to 46,923. 
As 12 is to 1, so is 610,000 to 50,833. 

The first result, or 46,923, is nearer to 47,700, the assumed ratio, 

than the last result, or 50,833. ‘The number 18, therefore, is more 


33* 


390 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATION. 


nearly apportioned to the assumed ratio than 12; and further trial of 
numbers will prove it to bear the nearest possible proportion to 47,700. 

Mr. Dean considers that, the ratio being assumed, the number of the 
House, and of each State’s share of representation, should be appor- 
tioned to the ratio. The error of the bill is thus shown; its ratio bears 
no proportion, either to the whole number of the House, or to the re- 
spective quotas of representation of the several States. Its ratio is arbi- 
trary, and its proposed number of this House is arbitrary ; that is, the 
number is not to be found by any process. The necessary consequence 

s, that no State’s share of the House is found by any rule of proportion. 

"The number of the House being fixed, the ratio should be Sass by 
proportion. As 24], e. g.:1:: 11,928,054: 49,494. 

Thus, for a House of 241, the true ratio is found to be 49,494; then, . 
by the rule of Professor Dean, each State is entitled to that number of 
Representatives which, when divided into its whole federative popula- 
tion, produces a quotient or ratio approximating nearest to the true ratio, 
49,494; in other words, each State is entitled to that number of Repre- 
sentatives which bears the nearest possible proportion to the true ratio. 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.* 





Mr. Presrpent, though I am entirely satisfied with the gen- 
eral view taken by the chairman of the committee,f and with his 
explanation of the details of the bill, yet there are a few topics 
upon which [| desire to offer some remarks; and if no other gen- 
tleman wishes at present to address the Senate, I will avail my- 
self of this opportunity. 

A considerable portion of the active part of life has elapsed, 
since you and I, Mr. President,t and three or four other gentle- 
men, now in the Senate, acted our respective parts in the pas- 
sage of the bill creating the present Bank of the United States. 
We have lived to little purpose, as public men, if the experience 
of this period has not enlightened our judgments, and enabled 
us to revise our opinions, and to correct any errors into which 
we may have fallen, if such errors there were, either in regard to 
the general utility of a national bank, or the details of its con- 
stitution. I trust it will not be unbecoming the occasion, if I 
allude to your own important agency in that transaction. The 
bill incorporating the bank, and giving it a constitution, proceed- 
ed from a committee in the House of Representatives, of which 
you were chairman, and was conducted through that House 
under your distinguished lead. Having recently looked back to 
the proceedings of that day, I must be permitted to say, that I 
have perused the speech by which the subject was introduced to 
the consideration of the House, with a revival of the feeling of 
approbation and pleasure with which I heard it; and I will add, 
that it would not, perhaps, now be easy to find a better brief 


* A Speech delivered in the Senate on the 25th of May, 1832, on the Bill for 
renewing the Charter of the Bank of the United States. 

+ Mr. Dallas. 

t Mr. Calhoun, at that time Vice-President of the United States. 


392 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


synopsis than that speech contains, of those principles of curren- 
cy and of banking, which, since they spring from the nature of 
money and of commerce, must be essentially the same at all 
times, in all commercial communities. The other gentlemen 
now with us in the Senate, all of them, I believe, concurred with 
the chairman of the committee, and voted for the bill. My own 
vote was against it. ‘T'his is a matter of little importance; but 
it is connected with other circumstances, to which I will for a 
moment advert. ‘The gentlemen with whom I acted on that 
occasion had no doubts of the constitutional power of Congress 
to establish a national bank; nor had we any doubts of the gen- 
eral utility of an institution of that kind. We had, indeed, 
most of us, voted for a bank, at a preceding session. But the 
object of our regard was not whatever might be called a bank. 
We required that it should be established on certain principles, 
which alone we deemed safe and useful, made subject to certain 
fixed liabilities, and so guarded, that it could neither move vol- 
untarily, nor be moved by others, out of its proper sphere of 
action. ‘lhe bill, when first introduced, contained features to 
which we should never have assented, and we accordingly set 
ourselves to work, with a good deal of zeal, in order to effect 
sundry amendments. In some of these proposed amendments, 
the chairman, and those who acted with him, finally concurred. 
Others they opposed. ‘The result was, that several most impor- 
tant amendments, as I thought, prevailed. But there still re- 
mained, in my opinion, objections to the bill, which justified a 
persevering opposition, till they should be removed. 

The first objection was to the magnitude of the capital. In 
its original form, the bill provided for a capital of thirty-five 
millions, with a power in Congress to increase it to fifty millions. 
This latter provision was struck out on the motion of a very 
intelligent gentleman from New York,* and I believe, Sir, with 
your assent. But I was of opinion that a capital of thirty-five 
millions was more than was called for by the circumstances of 
the country. ‘The capital of the first bank was but ten millions ; 
and it had not been shown to be too small; and there certainly 
was no good ground to say, that the business or the wants of 
the country had grown, in the mean time, in the proportion of 


* Mr. Cady. 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 390 


thirty-five to ten. But the state of things has now become 
changed. A greatly increased population, and a greatly ex- 
tended commercial activity, especially in the West and South- 
west, evidently require an enlarged capacity in the national 
bank. The capital, therefore, is less disproportionate to the 
occasion than it was sixteen years ago; and whatever of dis- 
proportion may be thought still to exist will be constantly de- 
creasing. ‘I'he augmentation of banking capital in State insti- 
tutions is by no means a reason for reducing the capital of this 
bank. At first view, there might appear to be some reason in 
such a suggestion; but I think further reflection on the duties 
expected to be performed by the bank, in relation to the general 
currency of the country, will show that suggestion not to be 
well founded. On the whole, I am disposed to continue the 
capital as it is. 

There was another objection. The bill had divided the stock 
into shares of one hundred dollars each, not of four hundred 
dollars each, as in the first bank; and it had established such a 
scale of voting by the stockholders, as showed it to be quite 
practicable for a minority in interest to control all elections, and 
to seize on the entire direction of the bank. It was on this very 
ground, and under the apprehension of this very evil, that the 
last attempt to amend the bill, made by me, proceeded. That 
attempt was a motion to diminish the number of shares, by 
raising the amount of each from one hundred dollars to four 
hundred. 

There was yet one other provision of the bill, which was re- 
garded as unnecessary and objectionable. ‘That was, the power 
reserved to the government of appointing five of the directors. 
We had no experience of our own of the effect of such govern- 
ment interference in the direction of the bank; and in other 
countries it had been found that such connection between gov- 
ernment and banking institutions produced nothing but evil. 
The credit of banks has generally been very much in proportion 
to their independence of government control. While acting on 
true commercial principles, they are useful both to government 
and people; but the history of the principal moneyed institu- 
tions of Europe has demonstrated, that their efficiency and 
stability consist very much in their freedom from all subjection 
to State interests and State necessities. The real safety to the 


394 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


public lies in the restraints and liabilities imposed by law, and 
in the interest which the proprietors themselves have in a ju- 
dicious management of the affairs of the corporation. I will 
only say, on this part of the subject, that it is unquestionably 
true, that the successful career of this institution commenced, 
when its stock, leaving the hands of speculation, came to be 
owned, for the common purposes of investment, by such as were 
in possession of capital to invest, and when the proprietors ex- 
ercised their proper discretion in constituting their part of the 
direction with a single view of giving to the bank a safe and 
competent administration. 

The question now is, Sir, whether this institution shall be con- 
tinued. We ought to treat it as a great public subject; to con- 
sider it, like statesmen, as it regards the great interests of the 
country, and with as little mixture as possible of all minor 
motives. 

The influence of the bank, Mr. President, on the interests of 
the government, and the interests of the people, may be consid- 
ered in several points of view. It may be regarded as it affects 
the currency of the country; as it affects the collection and dis- 
bursement of the public revenue; as it respects foreign ex- 
changes; as it respects domestic exchanges; and as it affects, 
either generally or locally, the agriculture, commerce, and manu- 
factures of the Union. 

First, as to the currency of the country. This is, at all times, 
a most important political object. A sound currency is an essen- 
tial and indispensable security for the fruits of industry and hon- 
est enterprise. Livery man of property or industry, every man 
who desires to preserve what he honestly possesses, or to obtain 
what he can honestly earn, has a direct interest in maintaining 
a safe circulating medium; such a medium as shall be a real 
and substantial representative of property, not liable to vibrate 
with opinions, not subject to be blown up or blown down by 
the breath of speculation, but made stable and secure by its im- 
mediate relation to that which the whole world regards as of a 
permanent value. A disordered currency is one of the greatest 
of political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the 
support of the social system, and encourages propensities de- 
structive of its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality, 
and ecgnomy ; and it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 395 


speculation. Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring 
classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that 
which deludes them with paper money. ‘This is the most effec- 
tual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat 
of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, exces- 
sive taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of 
the community, compared with a fraudulent currency, and the 
robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history 
has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, 
of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable 
oppression on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded 
paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced 
by government. 

We all know, Sir, that the establishment of a sound and uni- 
form currency was one of the great ends contemplated in the 
adoption of the present Constitution. If we could now fully ex- 
plore all the motives of those who framed and those who sup- 
ported that Constitution, perhaps we should hardly find a more 
powerful one than this. The object, indeed, is sufhiciently prom- 
inent on the face of the Constitution itself. It cannot well be 
questioned, that it was intended by that Constitution to submit 
tae whole subject of the currency of the country, all that re- 
gards the actual medium of payment and exchange, whatever 
that should be, to the control and legislation of Congress. Con- 
gress can alone coin money; Congress can alone fix the value 
of foreign coins. No State can coin money; no State can 
fix the value of foreign coins; no State (nor even Congress 
itself) can make any thing a tender but gold and silver, in the 
payment of debts; no State can emit bills of credit. The ex- 
elusive power of regulating the metallic currency of the country 
would seem necessarily to imply, or, more properly, to include, 
as part of itself, a power to decide how far that currency should 
be exclusive, how far any substitute should interfere with it, and 
what that substitute should be. The generality and extent of 
the power granted to Congress, and the clear and well-defined 
prohibitions on the States, leave little doubt of an intent to res- 
cue the whole subject of currency from the hands of local legis- 
lation, and to confer it on the general government. But, not- 
withstanding this apparent purpose in the Constitution, the 
fruth is, that the currency of the country is now, to a very great 


396 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


extent, practically and effectually under the control of the sev- 
eral State governments; if it be not more correct to say, that it 
is under the control of the banking institutions created by the 
States; for the States seem first to have taken possession of the 
power, and then to have delegated it. 

Whether the States can constitutionally exercise this power, 
or delegate it to others, is a question which I do not intend, at 
present, either to concede or to argue. It is much to be hoped, 
that no controversy on the point may ever become necessary. 
But it is matter highly deserving of consideration, that, although 
clothed by the Constitution with exclusive power over the me- 
tallic currency, Congress, unless through the agency of a bank 
established by its authority, has no control whatever over that 
which, in the character of a mere representative of the metallic 
eurrency, fills up almost all the channels of pecuniary circulation. 

In the absence of a Bank of the United States, the State 
banks become effectually the regulators of the public currency. 
Their numbers, their capital, and the interests connected with 
them, give them, in that state of things, a power which nothing 
is competent to control. We saw, therefore, when the late war 
broke out, and when there was no national bank in being, that 
the State institutions, of their own authority, and by an under- 
standing among themselves, under the gentle phrase of suspend- 
ing specie payments, everywhere south of New England re- 
fused payment of their notes, and thus filled the country with 
irredeemable and degraded paper. ‘They were not called to an- 
swer for this violation of their charters, as far as I remember, in 
any one State. They pleaded the urgency of the occasion, and 
the public distresses; and in this apology the State govern- 
ments acquiesced. Congress, at the same time, found itself in 
an awkward predicament. It held the.whole power over coins. 
No State or State institution could give circulation to an ounce 
of gold or of silver, not sanctioned by Congress. Yet all the 
States, and a hundred State institutions, claimed and exercised 
the right of driving coin out of circulation by the introduction of 
their own paper; and then of depreciating and degrading that 
paper, by refusing to redeem it. As they were not institutions 
created by this government, they were not answerable to it. 
Congress could not call them to account, and if it could, Con- 
etess had no bank of its own, whose circulation could supply the 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 397 


wants of the community. Coin, the substantial constituent, was, 
and was admitted to be, subject only to the control of Congress; 
but paper, assuming to be a representative of this constituent, 
was taking great liberties with it, at the same time that it was 
no way amenable to its constitutional guardian. This suspen- 
sion of specie payments was of course immediately followed by 
great depreciation of the paper. It shortly fell so low, that a 
bill on Boston could not be purchased at Washington under an 
advance of from twenty to twenty-five per cent. I do not mean 
to reflect on the proceedings of the State banks. Perhaps their 
best justification is to be found in the readiness with which gov- 
ernment itself borrowed their paper of them, depreciated as it 
was ; but it certainly becomes us to consider attentively this part 
of our experience, and to guard, as far as we can, against sim- 
ilar occurrences. 

I am of opinion, Sir, that a well-conducted national bank 
has an exceedingly useful and effective operation on the general 
paper circulation of the country. I think its tendency is mani- 
festly to restrain within some bounds the paper issues of other 
institutions. If it be said, on the other hand, that these’ institu- 
tions, in turn, hold in check the issues of the national bank, so 
much the better. Let that check go to its full extent. An over- 
issue, even by the bank itself, no one can desire. But it is plain, 
that, by holding State institutions which come into immediate 
contact with itself and its branches to an accountability for their 
issues, not yearly or quarterly, but daily and hourly, an impor- 
tant restraint is exercised. Be it remembered always, that what 
it is to expect from others, it is to perform itself; and that its 
own paper is at all times to turn into coin at the first touch of 
its own counter. 

But, Mr. President, so important is this object, that I think, 
that, far from diminishing, we ought rather to increase and mul- 
tiply our securities; and I am not prepared to,say that, even 
with the continuance of the bank charter, and under its wisest 
administration, I regard the state of our currency as entirely 
safe. It is evident to me that the general paper circulation has 
been extended too far for the specie basis on which it rests. 
Our system, as a system, dispenses too far, in my judgment, 
with the use of gold and silver. Having learned the use of pa- 
per as a substitute for specie, we use the substitute, I fear, too 

VOL. III. o4 


‘ 
398 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


freely It is true, that our circulating paper is all redeemable in 
gold and silver. Legally speaking, it is all convertible into spe- 
cie at the will of the holder. But a mere legal convertibility is 
not sufficient. There must be an actual, practical, never-ceasing 
convertibility. This, I think, is not at present sufhciently se- 
cured; and, as it is a matter of high interest, it well deserves 
the serious consideration of the Senate. ‘The paper circulation 
of the country is at this time probably seventy-five or eighty 
millions of dollars: Of specie, we may have twenty or twenty- 
two millions; and this principally in masses, in the vaults of the 
banks. Now, Si, this is a state of things which; in my judg- 
ment, leads constantly to over-trading, and to the consequent 
excesses and revulsions which so often disturb the regular course 
of commercial affairs. A circulation consisting in so great a 
degree of paper is easily expanded, to furnish temporary capi- 
tal to such as wish to adventure on new enterprises in trade; 
and the collection in the banks of the greater part of the specie 
in the country affords all possible facility for its exportation. 
Hence, over-trading does frequently occur, and is always fol- 
lowed by an inconvenient, sometimes by a dangerous, reduction 
in the amount of coin. It is in vain that we look to the pru- 
dence of the banks for an effectual security against over-trading. 
The directors of such institutions will generally go to the length 
of their means in cashing good notes, and leave the borrower to 
jadge for himself of the useful employment of his money. 

Nor would a competent security against over-trading be al- 
ways obtained, if the banks were to confine their discounts 
strictly to business paper, so denominated; that is, to notes and 
bills which represent real transactions, having been given and 
received on the actual purchase and sale of merchandise; be- 
cause these transactions themselves may be too far extended. 
In other words, more may be bought than the wants of the com- 
munity require, on a speculative calculation of future prices. 
Men naturally have a good opinion of their own sagacity.. He 
who believes merchandise is about to rise in price, will buy mer- 
chandise, if he possesses money, or can obtain credit. ‘The fact 
of actual purchase, therefore, is not proof of a really subsisting 
want; and of course the amount of all purchases does not cor- 
respond always with the entire wants or necessities of the com- 
munity. ‘Too frequently it very much exceeds that measure. 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 399 


If, then, the discretion of the banks, exercised in deciding the 
amount of their discounts, is not a proper security against over- 
trading, if facility in obtaining bank credits naturally fosters that 
spirit, if the desire of gain and love of enterprise constantly 
cherish it, and if it finds specie collected in the banks inciting 
exportation, what is the remedy suited and adequate to the 
case ? 

Now I think, Sir, that a closer inquiry into the direct source 
of the evil will suggest the remedy. Why have we so small an 
amount of specie in circulation? Certainly the only reason is, 
because we do not require more. We have but to ask its pres- 
ence, and it would return. But we voluntarily banish it by the 
great amount of small bank-notes. In most of the States, the 
banks issue notes of all low denominations, down even to a sin- 
gle dollar. How is it possible, under such circumstances, to 
retain specie in circulation? All experience shows it to be im- 
possible. ‘The paper will take the place of the gold and silver. 
When Mr. Pitt, in the year 1797, proposed in Parliament to 
authorize the Bank of England to issue one-pound notes, Mr. 
Burke lay sick at Bath of an illness from which he never recov- 
ered; and he is said to have written to the late Mr. Canning, 
“Tell Mr. Pitt, that, if he consents to the issuing of one-pound 
notes, he must never expect to see a guinea again.”  ‘'T’he one- 
pound notes were issued, and the guineas disappeared. A similar 
cause is producing now a precisely similar effect with us. Small 
notes have expelled dollars and half-dollars from circulation in 
all the States in which such notes are issued. On the other 
hand, dollars and half-dollars abound in those States which have 
adopted a wiser and safer policy. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ma- 
ryland, Louisiana, and some other States, I think seven in all, 
do not allow their banks to issue notes under five dollars. Ey- 
ery traveller notices the difference, when he passes from one of 
these States into those where small notes are allowed. 

The evil, then, is the issuing of small notes by State banks. 
Of these notes, that is to say, of notes under five dollars, 
the amount now in circulation is doubtless eight or ten mil- 
lions of dollars. Can these notes be withdrawn? If they can, 
their place will be immediately supplied by a specie circula- 
tion of equal amount. The object is a great one, as it is con- 
nected with the safety and stability of the currency, and may 


400 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


well justify a serious reflection on the means of accomplishing 
it. May not Congress and the State governments, acting, not 
unitedly, but severally, to the same end, easily and quietly at- 
tain it? Ithinkthey may. It is but for other States to follow 
the good example of those which I have mentioned, and the 
work is done. As an inducement to the States to do this, I 
propose, in the present bill, to reserve to Congress a power of 
withdrawing from circulation a pretty large part of the issues of 
the Bank of the United States. I propose this, so that the 
State banks may withdraw their small notes, and find their com- 
pensation in a larger circulation of those of a higher denomina- 
tion. My proposition will be, that, at any time after the expi- 
ration of the existing charter of the bank, that is, after 1836, 
Congress may, if it see fit, restrain the bank from issuing for 
circulation notes or bills under a given sum, say, ten or twenty 
dollars. This will diminish the circulation, and consequently 
the profits, of the bank; but it is of less importance to make 
the bank a highly profitable institution to the stockholders, than 
that it should be safe and useful to the community. It ought 
not, certainly, to be restrained from the enjoyment of all the fair 
advantages to be derived from the discreet use of its capital in 
banking transactions; but the leading object, after all, in its 
continuance, is, and ought to be, not private emolument, but 
public benefit. 

It may, perhaps, strike some gentlemen, that the circulation 
of small notes might be effectually discouraged, by refusing 
to receive not only all such notes, but all notes of such 
banks as issue them, at the custom-houses, land-offices, post- 
offices, and other places of public receipt, and by causing them 
to be refused also, either in payment or deposit, at the Bank 
of the United States. But the effect of such refusal may be 
doubtful. It would certainly, in some degree, discredit such 
notes; but probably it would not drive them out of circulation 
altogether; and if it should not do this, it might very probably 
increase their circulation. If in some degree they become dis- 
credited, to that degree they will become cheaper than other 
notes ; and universal experience proves, that, of two things which 
may be current, the cheaper will always expel the other. Thus, 
silver itself, because it is proportionably cheaper with us than 
gold, has driven the gold out of the country; that is to say; we 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 401 


ean pay a debt of one hundred dollars, by tendering that number 
of Spanish or American dollars. But we cannot go into the 
market, and buy ten American eagles for these hundred silver 
dollars. ‘They would cost us a hundred and four. Thus, as we 
can pay our debts cheaper in silver than in gold, we use noth- 
ing but silver, and the gold goes where it is more highly valued. 
The same thing always happens between two sorts of paper, 
which are found at the same time in circulation. That which 
is cheapest, or of less value than the other, always drives its 
more respectable associate out of its company. 

Measures, therefore, such as I have alluded to, would be likely, 
I fear, rather to aggravate than to remedy the evil. We must 
hope that all notes under five dollars may be entirely withdrawn 
from circulation, by the consent of the States and the State 
banks; and when that shall be done, their place will be imme- 
diately supplied by specie. We should then receive an acces- 
sion of ten millions of dollars, at least, to our specie circulation ; 
and these ten millions will find their place, not in the banks, 
not collected anywhere in large masses, but in constant use, 
among all classes, and in hourly transfer from hand to hand. 
It cannot be denied that such an addition would give great 
strength to our pecuniary system, discourage excessive exporta- 
tion of specie, and tend to restrain and correct the evils of over- 
trading. England has applied the like remedy to a similar evil, 
though she has carried the restriction much higher, and allowed 
the circulation of no notes for less sums than five pounds ster- 
ling. 

I have thought this subject, Mr. President, of so much im- 
portance, that it was fit to present it, at this time, to the con- 
sideration of the Senate. I propose to do no more at present 
than to insert such a provision as I have described in this bill. 
In the mean time, I hope the matter may attract the attention 
of those whose agency will be desired to accomplish the general 
object. 

The next point on which I will offer a few remarks is the 
great advantage of the bank in the operations of the ‘Treasury ° 
first in the collection, and, next, in the disbursement of the reve- 
nue. How is the revenue to be collected through all the custom- 
houses, the land-offices, and the post-offices, without some such 
means as the bank affords? Where are payments made at 

34 * 


402 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


the custom-houses to be deposited? In whose hands are these 
large sums to be trusted? And how are they to be remitted to 
Washington, or wherever else they may be wanted? I dare 
say, Sir, that the operations of the government might be carried 
on in some way without the agency of a bank; but the ques- 
tion is, whether they could be carried on safely, without loss 
and without charge. Look to the disbursement of the reve- 
nue. At present, the bank is bound to transmit government 
funds in one place to any other place, without expense. A 
dollar at St. Louis or Nashville becomes a dollar in New 
Hampshire or Maine, if the Treasury so choose. This cer- 
tainly is very useful and convenient. If there were no Bank 
of the United States at New Orleans, for example, duties to 
the government at that place must be received either in spe- 
cie, or in bills of local banks. If in the former, the funds could 
not be remitted where they might be required, without consid- 
erable expense; if in the latter, they could not be remitted at 
all, until first converted into specie. If bills of exchange were 
resorted to, they would often command a premium, and would 
be always attended with more or less risk. In short, the util- 
ity of the bank in collecting and disbursing the revenue is too 
obvious to be argued, and too great not to strike any one, gon- 
versant with such subjects, without the aid of comment. 

I have alluded to its dealings in foreign exchanges as one of 
the most important powers of the corporation. There are those 
who think this power ought to be withheld. The possession of 
it is, I think, one of the most common objections to the bank in 
the large cities; but I do not think it a well-founded objection. 
It is said that the trade in exchange ought to be left free, like 
other trafic. Be it so; but then why not leave it as free to the 
bank as to others? ‘The bank enjoys no monopoly. If it be 
true, that, by the magnitude of its capital and the distribution 
of its several offices, it acts upon the rates of exchange, not 
locally, but generally, and thus occasionally restrains the profit 
of dealing in one place by bringing the general rates through 
the whole country nearer to a uniformity, the occasional profits 
of individuals may be lessened, but the general effect is bene- 
ficial to the public. If, at the same time that it keeps the do- 
mestic exchanges of the country at low rates, it keeps the rates 
of foreign exchanges nearly uniform and level, I hardly know 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 403 


how it could do greater service to the commercial community. 
In the business of foreign exchange the bank has, and always will 
have, powerful rivals. It is natural that these rivals should de- 
sire that, in this particular, the bank should retire from business. 
But are its dealings in exchange found prejudicial, by those who 
deal in it themselves no further than to buy for their own remit- 
tances in the ordinary way of business? In things of this kind 
we may most safely guide ourselves by the light of experience. 
Taking it for granted that the general interest of the trading 
community is injured by sudden fluctuations in exchange, and 
benefited by keeping it as steady as the commerce of the coun- 
try will allow, — in other words, by making the price of bills cor- 
respond with the real state of the exchange, instead of being 
raised or lowered for ends of speculation,—I have inquired 
of those who could inform me, whether, for ten or twelve years 
past, the rates of exchange have, or have not, been as steady 
and unvarying as may ever be expected; and the information 
I have received has satisfied me that the power of the bank of 
dealing in foreign exchange has been far from prejudicial to the 
commercial world. While there is a dealer with competent 
funds and credit always willing to seH foreign bills at moderate 
rates, and always ready also to buy them, the very nature of the 
case furnishes a considerable degree of security against those 
fluctuations which arise from speculation, although it leaves 
private dealings entirely free. 

If that power should be now taken away from the bank, I 
think I can perceive that consequences of some magnitude 
would follow, in particular parts of the country. At present, the 
producer or the shipper of produce at New Orleans, Savannah, 
or Charleston, in making shipment for Europe, can, on the spot, 
cash his bill, drawn against such shipment, without charge for 
brokerage, guaranty, or commission. If the planter has sold to 
the shipper, the latter has his bill discounted, and pays the 
planter, who thus receives the price for his crop without delay, 
and without danger of loss. Suppose the bank were denied 
the power of purchasing foreign bills, what would be the neces- 
sary operation? ‘The producer or shipper might send the cot- 
ton or the sugar to the North, and in that case the bank could 
eash his draft. But if he sent it abroad, his bill must be sent 
to his agent, in the bill market of the Northern cities, for sale ; 


404 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


and if he wishes to realize the amount, he will draw on his 
agent, and sell such draft. This evidently subjects him to a 
double operation, and to the expenses of commission and guar- 
anty. 

It is plain, I think, that, in the present state of things, the 
shipper of Southern and Western produce enjoys the benefit of 
both the foreign and the Northern market more perfectly than 
he would if this state of things were to be so changed, that he 
could not draw on his consignee in the foreign market as advan- 
tageously as he can now do it. 

But if there be a question about the utility of the operations 
of the bank in foreign exchange, there can be none, I suppose, 
as to its influence on that which is internal or domestic. I 
speak now of internal exchange as exchange merely; without 
considering it connected, as it usually is, with advance or dis- 
count, in anticipation of the maturity of bills. In regard to mere 
exchange, the operations of the bank appear to have produced 
the most beneficial effect. I doubt whether, in any extensive 
country, the rates of internal exchange ever averaged so low. » 
Before the bank went into operation, three, four, or five per 
cent. was not uncommon as the difference of exchange between 
one extremity of the country and the other. It has at times, 
indeed, as | am informed, been as high as six per cent. between 
New Orleans and Baltimore; and between other places in this 
country much higher. ‘The vast amounts bought and sold by 
the bank, in all parts of the country, average, perhaps, less than 
one half of one per cent. I doubt whether this exceeds the rates 
between comparatively neighboring parts of Great Britain, or 
of the continent of Europe, although much of it consists in 
exchange between the extreme South and the northern and east- 
ern parts of the Union. . 

With respect to’the effect and operation of the bank upon 
the general interests of agriculture, commerce, and manufac- 
tures, there will be found a great difference as we look at 
different parts of the country. Everywhere, I think, they 
have been salutary; but they have been important in very 
different degrees in different quarters. The influence of the 
bank on the general currency of the country, and its opera- 
tions in exchanges, are benefits of a general nature. These 
are felt all over the country. But in loans and discounts, in 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 405 


the distribution and actual application of its capital, different 
portions of the country have partaken, and are partaking, in 
very different degrees. ‘The West is a new and fast-growing 
country, with vast extents of rich land, inviting settlement and 
cultivation. Enterprise and labor are pressing to this scene 
of useful exertion, and necessarily create an urgent demand 
for capital. This demand the bank meets to a very consider- 
able degree. ‘The reports of the bank show the existing ex- 
tent of its accommodation to this part of the country. In the 
whole Southern and Western States, that is to say, south and 
west of Philadelphia, the amount exceeds forty-three millions 
of dollars. In the States lying on the Mississippi and its wa- 
ters, it exceeds thirty millions of dollars. Of these thirty mil- 
lions, nineteen or twenty are discounts of notes, and the res- 
idue of acceptances of bills drawn on other parts of the country. 
This last amount is not strictly a loan; it is an advance in 
anticipation of a debt; but other advances are needed, quite as 
fast as this is paid off, as every successive crop creates a new 
occasion, and a new desire to sell bills. I leave it to Western 
gentlemen to judge how far this state of things goes to show 
that the continuance of the bank is important to the agriculture 
and commerce of the West. I leave it to them to contemplate 
the consequences of withdrawing this amount of capital from 
their country. I pray them also to inquire what is to be their 
circulating medium, when the notes of the bank are called in? 
Do they see before them neither difficulty nor danger in this 
part of the case? Are they quite confident, that, in the absence 
of the bills and notes of the Bank of the United States, they 
need have no fears of a bad currency, depreciated paper, and the 
long train of ills that follow, according to all human experience, 
those inauspicious leaders? I ask them, also, to judge how far 
it is wise to settle this question now, so as to give time for mak- 
ing this vast change, if it is to be made at all. ‘The present 
charter is to continue but four years. If it be not renewed, this 
debt must be called in within that period. Not a new note can 
be taken to the bank for a dollar of it, after that time. ‘The 
whole circulation of bank-notes, too, must be withdrawn. Is :t 
not plain, then, that it is high time to know how this important 
matter is to be adjusted? ‘The country could not stand a sud- 
den recall of all this capital, and an abrupt withdrawal of this 


406 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


circulation. How, indeed, the West could stand the change, 
even if it were begun now, and conducted as gradually and as 
gently as possible, I confess, I can hardly see. The very corn- 
mencement of the process of recall, however slight, would be felt 
in the prices of the very first crop, partly from the immediate 
effect of withdrawing even a small portion of the capital, and 
partly from the certainty of future pressure from withdrawing 
the rest. 

Indeed, gentlemen must prepare themselves, I think, for some 
effect on prices of lands and commodities by the postponement 
of this question, should it take place, as well as for embarrass- 
ments in other respects. ‘That postponement will, at best, not 
diminish the uncertainty which hangs over the fate of the meas- 
ure. Seeing the hostility which exists to renewing the charter, 
and the extent of that hostility, if the measure cannot now be 
carried, not only a prudent regard to its own interests, but the 
highest duty to the country, ought to lead the bank to prepare 
for the termination of its career. It has not before it one day 
too many to enable it to wind up such vast concerns, with- 
out distressing the public. If it were certain that the charter 
was to be renewed, a postponement would be of little impor- 
tance. But this is uncertain, and a postponement would render 
it more uncertain. A motion to postpone, should such be made, 
will be mainly supported by those who, either on constitutional 
grounds, or some other grounds, are and always will be against 
the renewal of the charter. A postponement under such cir- 
cumstances, and such auspices, cannot but create far stronger 
doubts than now exist of the final renewal of the charter. It is 
now two years and a half since the President invited the atten- 
tion of Congress to this subject. That invitation has been more 
than once repeated. Everywhere the subject has been con- 
sidered; everywhere it has been discussed. The public interest 
now requires our decision upon it, and the public voice de- 
mands that decision. I trust, Sir, we shall make it, and make it 
wisely. 

Mr. President, the motives which prescribe my own line of 
conduct, on this occasion, are not drawn from any local consid: 
erations. The State in whose representation I bear a part has 
as little interest peculiar to itself, in the continuance of this cor- 
poration, as any State in the Union. She does not need the aid 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 407 


of its capital, because the state of her commerce and manufac- 
tures does not call for the employment of more capital than she 
possesses. She does not need it, in a peculiar degree, certainly, 
as any restraint or corrective on her own paper currency. — Her 
banks are as well conducted as those of other States. But she 
has a common interest in the continuance of a useful institution. 
She has an interest in the wise and successful administration of 
the government, in all its departments. She is interested that 
the general currency of the country should be maintained in a 
safe and healthy state. She derives a benefit with others (I be- 
lieve it a great benefit) from the facility of exchanges in internal 
ecommerce, which the bank affords. This is the sum of her 
motives. For these reasons, she is willing that the bank should 
be continued. But if the matter should be otherwise deter- 
mined, however much she might regret it on general and public 
grounds, she certainly does not apprehend from that result such 
inconveniences to her own citizens as may and must fall, so far 
as I can see, on some others. 

Mr. President, I will take leave of the subject for the present, 
with a remark which I think is due from me. For some years 
past, I have not been inattentive to the general operations of the 
bank, or to their influence on the public interests and the con- 
venient administration of the government; and I take the occa- 
sion to say, with sincerity and cheerfulness, that, during that 
period, its affairs have been conducted, in my opinion, with 
fidelity, as well towards the government as towards its own 
stockholders ; and that it has sought the accomplishment of the 
public purposes designed by its institution with distinguished 
ability and distinguished success. 


FURTHER REMARKS ON THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 
MADE IN THE SENATE ON THE 28TH OF MAY, 1832. 


Tue question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Moore of Ala- 
bama, proposing, — 

“« First, That the bank shall not establish or continue any office of 
discount or deposit, or branch bank, in any State, without the consent 
and approbation of the State ; 


408 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


**Second, That all such offices and branches shall be subject to tax- 
ation, according to the amount of their loans and issues, in like manner 
as other banks or other property shall be lable to taxation ”’ ; — 

Mr. Webster spoke as follows : — 


I trust, Sir, the Senate will not act on these propositions with- 
out fully understanding their bearing and extent. For inyself, 
I look upon the two parts of the amendment as substantially of 
the same character. Each, in my opinion, confers a power in 
the States to expel the bank at their pleasure; in other words, 
entirely to defeat the operations, and destroy the capacity for 
usefulness, of the whole bank. ‘The simple question is, Shall 
we, by our own act, in the charter itself, give to the States this 
permission to expel the bank and all its branches from their 
limits, at their own pleasure? The first part of the amendment 
gives this permission in express terms; and the latter part gives 
it in effect, by authorizing the States to tax the loans and issues 
of the bank, with no effectual limitation. It appears to me idle 
to say, that this power may be safely given, because it will not 
be exercised. It is to be given, I presume, on the supposition 
that probably some of the States will choose to exercise it; else 
why is it given at all? And will they not so choose? We 
have already heard, in the course of this debate, of two cases in 
which States attempted to exercise a power of this kind, when 
they did not constitutionally possess it. Two States have taxed 
the branches, for the avowed purpose of driving them out of 
their limits, and were prevented from accomplishing this object 
merely by force of judicial decisions against their right. If, then, 
these attempts have been made to exercise this power when it 
was not legally possessed, and against the will of Congress, is 
there any doubt that it will be exercised when its exercise shall 
be permitted and invited by the proposed amendment? No 
doubt, in my mind, the power, if granted, will be exercised, and 
the main object of continuing the bank will be thus defeated. 

I have already said, that the second branch of the amendment 
is as objectionable and as destructive as the first. I think it so 
It appears to me to give ample power, by means of taxation, to 
expel the bank from any State which may choose to expel it. 
It gives a power of taxation without fixed limits, or any reason- 
able guards. And a power of taxation without fixed limits, 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 409 


and without guards, is a power to embarrass, a power to oppress, 
a power to expel, a power to destroy. The States are to be 
allowed to tax the branches according to the amount of their 
loans and discounts, in like manner as other banks, or other 
property in the State, shall be liable to taxation. 

Now, Sir, some of the States have no banks. Of course they 
tax no banks. In other States, the banks pay the State a bonus 
on their creation, and are not otherwise taxed. In other cases, 
the State, in effect, itself owns the bank, and a tax on il, there- 
fore, would be merely nominal. Besides, no State is to be 
bound to lay this tax as it taxes its own banks. It has an 
option to tax it in that manner, or as other property is taxed. 
What other property? It may be as lottery-tickets, gaming- 
tables, or other things which may be deemed fit to be discour- 
aged or suppressed, are taxed. ‘The bank may be classed with 
other nuisances, and driven out or put down by taxation. All 
this is perfectly within the scope of the amendment. The 
license is broad enough to authorize any thing which may be 
designed or wished. 

Now, Sir, I doubt exceedingly our power to adopt this amend- 
ment, and I pray the deliberate consideration of the Senate in 
regard to this point. In the first place, let me ask, What is the 
constitutional ground on which Congress created this corpora- 
tion, and on which we now propose to continue it? ‘There is. 
no express authority to create a bank, or any other corporation, 
given to us by the Constitution. The power is derived by im- 
plication. It has been exercised, and can be exercised, only on 
the ground of a just necessity. It is to be maintained, if at all, 
on the allegation, that the establishment of a national bank is 
a just and necessary means for carrying on the government, and 
executing the powers conferred on Congress by the Constitu- 
tion. On this ground, Congress has established this bank, and 
on this it is now proposed to be continued. And it has already 
been judicially decided, that, Congress having established a 
bank for these purposes, the Constitution of the United States. 
prohibits the States from taxing it. Observe, Sir, it is the Con- 
stitution, not the law, which lays this prohibition on the States. 
The charter of the bank does not declare that the States shall 
not tax it. It says not one word on that subject. ‘The restraint 
is imposed, not by Congress, but by a higher authority, the Con- 

VOL. III. 30 


410 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


stitution. Now, Sir, I ask how we can relieve the States from 
this constitutional prohibition. It is true, that this prohibition 
is not imposed in express terms; but it results from the general 
provisions of the Constitution, and has been judicially decided 
to exist in full force. This is a protection, then, which the Con- 
stitution of the United States, by its own force, holds over this 
institution, which Congress has deemed necessary to be created 
in order to carry on the government, so soon as Congress, exer- 
cising its own judgment, has chosen to create it. Can we 
throw off from this government this constitutional protection ? 
I think it clear we cannot. We cannot repeal the Constitution. 
We cannot say that every power, every branch, every institu- 
tion, and every law of this government shall not have all the 
force, all the sanction, and all the protection, which the Consti- 
tution gives it. 

By the Constitution, every law of Congress is finally to be 
considered, and its construction ultimately settled, by the Su- 
preme Court of the United States. These very acts before ree 
ferred to, taxing the banks, were held valid by some of the judi- 
catures of the States, but were finally pronounced unconstitu- 
tional by the Supreme Court of the United States; and this, 
not by force of any words in the charter, but by force of the 
Constitution itself. I ask whether it is competent for us to re- 
verse this provision of the Constitution, and to say that the laws 
of Congress shall receive their ultimate construction from the 
State courts. Again, the Constitution gives Congress a right 
to lay duties of impost, and it prohibits the exercise of any such 
power by the States. Now it so happens, that the national 
treasury is much better supplied than the treasuries of the States. 
It might be thought very convenient that a part of the receipts at. 
the custom-houses should be received by the States. But will 
any man say that Congress could now authorize the States to 
lay and collect imposts under any restrictions or limitations 
whatever? No one will pretend it. ‘That would be to make a 
new partition of power between this government and the State 
governments. Mr. Madison has very correctly observed, that the 
assent of the States cannot confer a new power on Congress, 
except in those cases especially provided in the Constitution: 
This is very true, and it is equally true that the States cannot 
obtain a new power by the consent of Congress, against the 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 411 


prohibition of the Constitution, except in those cases which are 
expressly so provided for in the Constitution itself. 

These reasons, Sir, lead me to think that, if, for purposes con- 
nected with the beneficial administration of the government, we 
deem it necessary to continue this corporation, we are not at 
liberty to repeal any protection, or any immunity, with which 
the Constitution surrounds it. We cannot give to a law of the 
United States less than its constitutional effect. The Constitu- 
tion says, that every such law, passed in pursuance of the Con- 
stitution, shall be paramount to any State law. We cannot 
enact that it shall mot be so; for that would be so far to repeal 
the Constitution. 

Allow me now, Mr. President, to inquire on what ground it 
is that the States claim this power of taxation. They do not 
claim it as a power to tax all property of their own citizens. 
This they possess, without denial or doubt. Every stockholder 
in the bank is liable to be taxed for his property therein, by the 
State of which he is a citizen. ‘This right is exercised, I believe, 
by all the States which lay taxes on money at interest, income, 
and other subjects of that kind. It is, then, not that they may 
be authorized to tax the property of their own citizens. Nor is it 
because any State does not participate in the advantage of the 
premium, or bonus, paid by the bank to government for the char- 
ter. That sum goes into the treasury for the general good of all. 

Nor can the claim be sustained, nor, indeed, is it asserted, on 
the strength of the mere circumstance that a branch, or an oflice, 
is established in a State. Such office or branch is but an agen- 
cy. It is no body politic or corporate. It has no legal exist- 
ence of itself. It is but an agent of the general corporation. 
That these agents have their residence or place of business 
in a particular State, is not of itself the foundation of any 
claim. But, according to the language of the amendment, the 
ground of this claim to tax is evidently the loans and issues; 
and these loans and issues, properly speaking, are the loans 
and discounts of the oank. ‘The office, as an agent, conducts 
the arrangements, it is true; but the notes which are issued 
are notes of the bank, and the debts created are debts due 
to the bank. ‘The circulation is the circulation of the bank. 
Now the truth is, what the States claim, or what this amend- 
ment proposes to give them, is a right to tax the circulation of 


412 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


the bank. It is on this right that, the argument rests. The 
common way of stating it is, that, since State banks pay a tax 
to the State, these branch banks among them ought to pay a 
similar tax. But the State banks pay the tax to the State for 
the privilege of circulation; and the proposition is, therefore, 
neither more nor less than that the United States Bank shall 
pay the States for the same privilege. ‘The circulation of the 
bills is the substance. ‘The locality of the office is but an inci- 
‘dent. An office is created, for example, on Connecticut River, 
either in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, or New Hamp- 
shire. ‘The notes of the bank are loaned at this office, and put 
into circulation in all these States. Now, no one will say that 
the State where the office happens to be placed should have a 
right to lay this tax, and the other States have no such right. 
This would be a merely arbitrary distinction. It would be 
founded on no real or substantial difference; and no man, as it 
seems to me, could seriously contend for it. Under this very 
amendment, Pennsylvania would be authorized to collect a large 
tax, and New Jersey no tax at all, although the State circulation 
of New Jersey is as much infringed and diminished as that of 
Pennsylvania by the circulation of the Bank of the United 
States. The States which have the benefit of branches (if it be 
a benefit) are to have the further advantage of taxation; while 
other States are to have neither the one nor the other. Found- 
ing the claim on the State right to derive benefit from the paper 
circulation which exists within it, the advocates of the claim are 
clearly not consistent with themselves, when they maintain a 
measure which professes to protect that right in some States, 
-and to leave it unprotected in others. 

But the inequality of the operation of this amendment is not 
the only, nor the main, objection to it. It proceeds on a prin- 
‘ciple not to be admitted. It asserts, or it takes for granted, that 
the power of authorizing and regulating the paper currency of 
the country is an exclusive State right. The ground assured 
can be no less broad than this; because, the Bank of the United 
States having the grant of a power from Congress to issue notes 
for circulation, its right is perfect, if Congress could make such 
a grant. It owes nothing to the States, if Congress could give 
what it has undertaken to give; that is to say, if Congress, of 
its own authority, may confer a right to issue paper for circula- 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 413 


tion. Now, Sir, whosoever denies this right in Congress denies, 
of course, its power to create such a bank as now exists; at least, 
so it strikes me. ‘he Bank of the United States is quite uncon- 
stitutional, if the whole paper circulation belongs to the States ; 
because the Bank of the United States is a bank of circulation, 
and was so intended to be by Congress, which expressly author- 
ized the circulation of notes and bills. The power of issuing 
notes for circulation is not an indispensable ingredient in the 
constitution of a bank, merely as a bank. ‘The earlier banks 
did not possess it, and many good ones have existed without it. 
A bank with no such power might yet very well collect the 
public revenue, provided there was a proper medium in which 
it could be paid; could tolerably well remit the revenue to the 
treasury ; and could deal usefully, to some extent, in the business 
of exchange. 

On what ground is it, then, that etiiisieas possesses the pow- 
er, not only to create a bank, but a bank of circulation? Sim- 
ply, as I suppose, because Congress possesses a constitutional 
control over the currency of the country, and has power to pro- 
vide a safe medium of circulation, as well for other purposes as 
for the collection of its own debts and revenue. The bank, 
therefore, already possesses unconstitutional power, if the paper 
circulation be the subject, exclusively, of State right or State 
regulation. Indeed, Sir, it is not a little startling that such ex- 
clusive right should now be asserted. I observed, the other day, 
that, in my opinion, it was very difficult to maintain, on the face 
of the Constitution itself, and independent of long-continued 
practice, the doctrine that the States could authorize the circula- 
tion of bank paper at all. They cannot coin money; can they, 
then, coin that which becomes the actual and almost the univer- 
sal substitute for money? Is not the right of issuing paper, in- 
tended for circulation, in the place and as the representative of 
metallic currency, derived merely from the power of coining and 
regulating that metallic currency? As bringing this matter to 
a just test, let me ask whether Congress, if it had not the power 
of coining money, and of regulating the value of foreign coins. 
could create a bank, with the power to circulate bills. For one, 
I think it would be difficult to make that out. Where, then, do 
the States, to whom all control over the metallic currency is 
altogether prohibited, get this power? It is true that, in other 

30 * 


414 BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 


countries, private bankers, having no legal authority over the 
coin, issue notes for circulation. But this they do always with 
the consent of government, express or implied; and govern- 
ment restrains and regulates all their operations at its pleasure. 
It would be a startling proposition, in any other part of the 
world, that the prerogative of coining money, held by govern- 
ment, was liable to be defeated, counteracted, or impeded, by 
another prerogative, held in other hands, of authorizing a paper 
circulation. 

It is further to be observed, that the States cannot issue bills 
of credit; not that they cannot make them a legal tender, but 
that they cannot issue them at all. Is not this a clear indication 
of the intent of the Constitution to restrain the States, as well 
from establishing a paper circulation, as from interfering with 
the metallic circulation? Banks have been created by States 
with no capital whatever; their notes being put into circulation 
simply on the credit of the State, or the State law. What are 
the issues of such banks but bills of credit, issued by the State? 

I confess, Mr. President, that the more I reflect on this sub- 
ject, the more clearly does my mind approach the conclusion, 
that the creation of State banks, for the purpose and with the 
power of circulating paper, is not consistent with the grants and 
prohibitions of the Constitution. But, Sir, this is not now the 
question. ‘The question is, not whether the States have the 
power; it is, whether they alone have the power. May they 
rightfully exclude the United States from all interference with 
the paper currency? Are we interlopers, when we create a 
bank of circulation? Do we owe them a seigniorage for the cir- 
culation of bills, by a corporation created by Congress? Up to 
the present time, the States have been content with a concur- 
rent power. They have, indeed, controlled vastly the larger por- 
tion of the circulation; but they have not claimed exclusive 
authority over the whole. ‘They have demanded no tax or trib- 
ute from a bank issuing paper under the authority of Congress. 
Nor do I know that any State or States now insist upon it. It 
may be, that individual States have put forth such claims, in 
their legislative capacity; but at present I recollect no instance. 
The amendment, however, which is now proposed, asserts the 
claim, and I cannot consent to yield to it. We seem to be 
making the last struggle for the authority of Congress to inter 


BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 415 


fere at all with the actual currency of the country. I shall never 
agree to surrender that authority; I would as soon yield the 
coinage power itself; nor do I think there would be much 
greater danger, nor a much clearer departure from constitu- 
tional principle, in a consenting to such surrender, than in acqui- 
escing in what is now proposed. 


THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO OF THE UNITED 
STATES BANK BILL.* 


Mr. PresipENT, no one will deny the high importance of the 
subject now before us. Congress, after full deliberation and 
discussion, has passed a bill, by decisive majorities, in both 
houses, for extending the duration of the Bank of the United 
States. It has not adopted this measure until its attention had 
been called to the subject, in three successive annual messages 
of the President. The bill having been thus passed by both 
houses, and having been duly presented to the President, in- 
stead of signing and approving it, he has returned it with ob- 
jections. These objections go against the whole substance of 
the law originally creating the bank. ‘They deny, in effect, that 
the bank is constitutional; they deny that it is expedient; they 
deny that it is necessary for the public service. 

It is not to be doubted, that the Constitution gives the Presi- 
dent the power which he has now exercised; but while the 
power is admitted, the grounds upon which it has been exerted 
become fit subjects of examination. The Constitution makes 
it the duty of Congress, in cases like this, to reconsider the 
measure which they have passed, to weigh the force of the 
President’s objections to that measure, and to take a new vote 
upon the question. 

Before the Senate proceeds to this second vote, I propose to 
make some remarks upon those objections. And, in the first 
place, it is to be observed, that they are such as to extinguish 
all hope that the present bank, or any bank at all resembling it, 
or resembling any known similar institution, can ever receive his 


* A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 11th of July, 
1832, on the President’s Veto of the Bank Bill. 


VETO OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 417 


approbation. He states no terms, no qualifications, no condi- 
tions, no modifications, which can reconcile him to the essential 
provisions of the existing charter. He is against the bank, 
and against any bank constituted in a manner known either to 
this or any other country. One advantage, therefore, is certain- 
ly obtained by presenting him the bill. It has caused the Presi- 
dent’s sentiments to be made known. There is no longer any 
mystery, no longer a contest between hope and fear, or between 
those prophets who predicted a veto and those who foretold an 
approval. ‘The bill is negatived; the President has assumed the 
responsibility of putting an end to the bank; and the country 
must prepare itself to meet that change in its concerns which 
the expiration of the charter will produce. Mr. President, I will 
not conceal my opinion that the affairs of the country are ap- 
proaching an important and dangerous crisis. At the very mo- 
ment of almost unparalleled general prosperity, there appears an 
unaccountable disposition to destroy the most useful and most 
approved institutions of the government. Indeed, it seems to be 
in the midst of all this national happiness that some are found 
openly to question the advantages of the Constitution itself; 
and many more ready to embarrass the exercise of its just power, 
weaken its authority, and undermine its foundations. How far 
these notions may be carried, it is impossible yet to say. We 
have before us the practical result of one of them. The bank 
has fallen, or is to fall. 

It is now certain, that, without a change in our public coun- 
sels, this bank will not be continued, nor will any other be es- 
tablished, which, according to the general sense and language of 
mankind, can be entitled to the name. Within three years and 
nine months from the present moment, the charter of the bank 
expires; within that period, therefore, it must wind up its con- 
cerns. It must call in its debts, withdraw its bills from circula- 
tion, and cease from all its ordinary operations. All this is to 
be done in three years and nine months; because, although 
there is a provision in the charter rendering it lawful to use the 
corporate name for two years after the expiration of the charter, 
yet this is allowed only for the purpose of suits and for the sale 
of the estate belonging to the bank, and for no other purpose 
whatever. The whole active business of the bank, its custody 
of public deposits, its transfer of public moneys, its dealing in 


418 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


exchange, all its loans and discounts, and all its issues of bills 
for circulation, must cease and determine on or before the third 
day of March, 1836; and within the same period its debts must 
be collected, as no new contract can be made with it, aS a Cor- 
poration, for the renewal of loans, or discount of notes or bills, 
after that time. 

The President is of opinion, that this time is long enough to 
close the concerns of the institution without inconvenience. 
His language is, “ The time allowed the bank to close its con- 
cerns is ample, and if it has been well managed, its pressure will 
be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. 
If, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will be its own.” 
Sir, this is all no more than general statement, without fact or 
argument to support it. We know what the management of 
the bank has been, and we know the present state of its affairs. 
We can judge, therefore, whether it be probable that its capital 
can be all called in, and the circulation of its bills withdrawn, in 
three years and nine months, by any discretion or prudence in 
management, without producing distress. The bank has dis- 
counted liberally, in compliance with the wants of the commu- 
nity. The amount due to it on loans and discounts, in certain 
large divisions of the country, is great; so great, that I do not 
perceive how any man can believe that it can be paid, within 
the time now limited, without distress. Let us look at known 
facts. Thirty millions of the capital of the bank are now out, 
on loans and discounts, in the States on the Mississippi and its 
waters; ten millions of which are loaned on the discount of 
bills of exchange, foreign and domestic, and twenty millions on 
promissory notes. Now, Sir, how is it possible that this vast 
amount can be collected in so short a period without suffering, 
by any management whatever? We are to remember, that, 
when the collection of this debt begins, at that same time, the 
existing medium of payment, that is, the circulation of the bills 
of the bank, will begin also to be restrained and withdrawn ; 
and thus the means of payment must be limited just when the 
necessity of making payment becomes pressing. The whole 
debt is to be paid, and within the same time the whole circula- 
tion withdrawn. 

The local banks, where there are such, will be able to afford 
little assistance; because they themselves will feel a full share 


OF TH UNIVED STATES BANK BILL. 419 


of the pressure. They will not be in a condition to extend 
their discounts, but, in all probability, obliged to curtail them. 
Whence, then, are the means to come for paying this debt? and 
in what medium is payment to be made? If all this may be 
done with but slight pressure on the community, what course 
of conduct is to accomplish it? How is it to be done? What 
other thirty millions are to supply the place of these thirty mil- 
lions now to be called in? What other circulation or medium 
of payment is to be adopted in the place of the bills of the 
bank? The message, following a singular train of argument, 
which had been used in this house, has a loud lamentation 
upon the suffering of the Western States on account of their 
being obliged to pay even interest on this debt. This payment 
of interest is itself represented as exhausting their means and 
ruinous to their prosperity. But if the interest cannot be paid 
. without pressure, can both interest and principal be paid in four 
years without pressure? The truth is, the interest has been 
paid, is paid, and may continue to be paid, without any pres- 
sure at all; because the money borrowed is profitably employed 
by those who borrow it, and the rate of interest which they pay 
is at least two per cent. lower than the actual value of money in 
that part of the country. But to pay the whole principal in less 
than four years, losing, at the same time, the existing and ac- 
customed means and facilities of payment created by the bank 
itself, and to do this without extreme embarrassment, without 
absolute distress, is, in my judgment, impossible. I hesitate not 
to say, that, as this veto travels to the West, it will depreciate 
the value of every man’s property from the Atlantic States to 
the capital of Missouri. Its effects will be felt in the price of 
lands, the great and leading article of Western property, in the 
price of crops, in the products of labor, in the repression of enter- 
prise, and in embarrassment to every kind of business and occu- 
pation. I state this opinion strongly, because I have no doubt 
of its truth, and am willing its correctness should be judged by 
the event. Without personal acquaintance with the Western 
States, I know enough of their condition to be satisfied that 
what I have predicted must happen. ‘The people of the West 
are rich, but their riches consist in their immense quantities of 
excellent land, in the products of these lands, and in their spirit 
of enterprise. The actual value of money, or rate of interest, 


420 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


with them is high, because their pecuniary capital bears little 
proportion to their landed interest. At an average rate, money 
is not worth less than eight per cent. per annum throughout the 
whole Western country, notwithstanding that it has now a loan 
or an advance from the bank of thirty millions, at six per cent. 
To call in this loan, at the rate of eight millions a year, in addi- 
tion to the interest on the whole, and to take away, at the same 
time, that circulation which constitutes so great a portion of the 
medium of payment throughout that whole region, is an opera- 
tion, which, however wisely conducted, cannot but inflict a blow 
on the community of tremendous force and frightful conse- 
quences. The thing cannot be done without distress, bankrupt- 
cy, and ruin, to many. If the President had seen any practical 
manner in which this change might be effected without pro- 
ducing these consequences, he would have rendered infinite ser- 
vice to the community by pointing it out. But he has pointed 
out nothing, he has suggested nothing; he contents himself 
with saying, without giving any reason, that, if the pressure be 
heavy, the fault will be the bank’s. I hope this is not merely 
an attempt to forestall opinion, and to throw on the bank the 
responsibility of those evils which threaten the country, for the 
sake of removing it from himself. 

The responsibility justly lies with him, and there it ought to 
remain. A great majority of the people are satisfied with the. 
bank as it is, and desirous that it should be continued. They 
wished no change. ‘The strength of this public sentiment has 
carried the bill through Congress, against all the influence of 
the administration, and all the power of organized party. But 
the President has undertaken, on his own responsibility, to 
arrest the measure, by refusing his assent to the bill. He is 
answerable for the consequences, therefore, which necessarily 
follow the change which the-expiration of the bank charter may 
produce; and if these consequences shall prove disastrous, they 
can fairly be ascribed to his policy only, and the policy of his 
administration. 

Although, Sir, I have spoken of the effects of this veto in the 
Western country, it has not been because I considered that part 
of the United States exclusively affected by it. Some of the 
Atlantic States may feel its consequences, perhaps, as sensibly 
as those of the West, though not for the same reasons. The 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 421 


concern manifested by Pennsylvania for the renewal of the 
charter shows her sense of the importance of the bank to her 


own interest, and that of the nation. That great and enterpris- 


ing State has entered into an extensive system of internal im- 
provements, which necessarily makes heavy demands on_ her 
credit and her resources; and by the sound and acceptable cur- 
rency which the bank affords, by the stability which it gives to 
private credit, and by occasional advances, made in anticipation 
of her revenues, and in aid of her great objects, she has found 
herself benefitted, doubtless, in no inconsiderable degree. Her 
legislature has instructed her Senators here to advocate the 
renewal of the charter, at this session. ‘They have obeyed her 
voice, and yet they have the misfortune to find that, in the judg- 
ment of the President, the measure is unconstitutional, unnecessa- 
ry, dangerous to liberty, and ts, moreover, ill-timed. 

. But, Mr. President, it is not the local interest of the West, 
nor the particular interest of Pennsylvania, or any other State,. 
which has influenced Congress in passing this bill. It has 
been governed by a wise foresight, and by a desire to avoid: 
embarrassment in the pecuniary concerns of the country, to 
secure the safe collection and convenient transmission of pub- 
lic moneys, to maintain the circulation of the country, sound: 
and safe as it now happily is, against the possible effects of a 
wild spirit of speculation. Finding the bank highly useful, Con- 


gress has thought fit to provide for its continuance. 


As to the time of passing this bill, it would seem to be the 
last thing to be thought of, as a ground of objection, by the 
President; since, from the date of his first message to the pres- 
ent time, he has never failed to call our attention to the subject 
with all possible apparent earnestness. So early as December, 
1829, in his message to the two houses, he declares, that he 
“ cannot, in justice to the parties interested, too soon present the 
subject to the deliberate consideration of the legislature, in or- 
der to avoid the evils resulting from precipitancy, in a measure 
involving such important principles and such deep pecuniary 
interests.” Aware of this early invitation given to Congress to. 
take up the subject, by the President himself, the writer of the 
message seems to vary the ground of objection, and, instead of 
complaining that the time of bringing forward this measure was 
premature, to insist, rather, that, after the report of the commit- 

VOL. III. 36 


422 THE PRESIDENTIAL ViTO 


~~ 


tee of the other house, the bank should have withdrawn its ap- 
plication for the present! But that report offers no just ground, 
surely, for such withdrawal. The subject was before Congress; 
it was for Congress to decide upon it, with all the light shed 
by the report; and the question of postponement, having been 
made in both houses, was lost, by clear majorities, in each. 
Under such circumstances, it would have been somewhat singu- 
lar, to say the least, if the bank itself had withdrawn its appli- 
cation. It is indeed known to every body, that neither the re- 
port of the committee, nor any thing contained in that report, 
was relied on by the opposers of the renewal. If it has been 
discovered elsewhere, that that report contained matter impor- 
tant in itself, or which should have led to further inquiry, this 
may be proof of superior sagacity; for certainly no such thing 
was discerned by either House of Congress. 

But, Sir, do we not now see that it was time, and high time, 
to press this bill, and to send it to the President? Does not the 
event teach us, that the measure was not brought forward one 
moment too early? The time had come when the people 
wished to know the decision of the administration on the ques- 
tion of the bank. Why conceal it, or postpone its declaration ? 
Why, as in regard to the tariff, give out one set of opinions for 
the North, and another for the South. 

An important election is at hand, and the renewal of the bank 
charter is a pending object of great interest, and some excite- 
ment. Should not the opinions of men high in office, and candi- 
dates for reelection, be known, on this, as on other important pub- 
lic questions? Certainly, it is to be hoped that the people of the 
United States are not yet mere man-worshippers, that they do 
not choose their rulers without some regard to their political prin- 
ciples, or political opinions. Were they to do this, it would be 
to subject themselves voluntarily to the evils which the heredi- 
tary transmission of power, independent of all personal qualifi- 
cations, inflicts on other nations. ‘They will judge their public 
servants by their acts, and continue or withhold their confidence, 
as they shall think it merited, or as they shall think it forfeited 
In every point of view, therefore, the moment had arrived, wher 
it became the duty of Congress to come to a result, in regard 
to this highly important measure. ‘The interests of the govern- 
ment, the interests of the people, the clear and indisputable voice 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 423 


of public opinion, all called upon Congress to act without fur- 
ther loss of time. It has acted, and its act has been negatived 
by the President; and this result of the proceedings here places 
the question, with all its connections and all its incidents, fully 
before the people. 

Before proceeding to the constitutional question, there are 
some other topics, treated in the message, which ought to be no- 
ticed. It commences by an inflamed statement of what it calls 
the “favor” bestowed upon the original bank by the govern- 
ment, or, indeed, as it is phrased, the “monopoly of its favor 
and support”; and through the whole message all possible 
changes are rung on the “ gratuity,” the “exclusive privileges,” 
and “monopoly,” of the bank charter. Now, Sir, the truth is, 
that the powers conferred on the bank are such, and no others, 
as are usually conferred on similar institutions. They consti- 
tute no monopoly, although some of them are of necessity, and 
with propriety, exclusive privileges. “ The original act,” says the 
message, “operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stock- 
holders.” What fair foundation is there for this remark? ‘The 
stockholders received their charter, not gratuitously, but for a 
valuable consideration in money, prescribed by Congress, and 
actualy paid. At some times the stock has been above par, at 
other times below par, according to prudence in management, 
or according to commercial occurrences. But if, by a judicious 
administration of its affairs, it had kept its stock always above 
par, what pretence would there be, nevertheless, for saying that 
such augmentation of its value was a “gratuity” from govern- 
ment? The message proceeds to declare, that the present act 
proposes another donation, another gratuity, to the same men, of 
at least seven millions more. It seems to me that this is an ex- 
traordinary statement, and an extraordinary style of argument, for 
such a subject and on such an occasion. In the first place, the facts 
are all assumed; they are taken for true without evidence. ‘There 
are no proofs that any benefit to that amount will accrue to the 
stockholders, nor any experience to justify the expectation of it. 
It rests on random estimates, or mere conjecture. But suppose 
the continuance of the charter should prove beneficial to the 
stockholders ; do they not pay for it? ‘They give twice as much 
for a charter of fifteen years, as was given before for, one of 
twenty. And if the proposed bonus, or premium, be not, in the 


424 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


President’s judgment, large enough, would he, nevertheless, on 
such a mere matter of opinion as that, negative the whole bill? 
May not Congress be trusted to decide even on such a subject 
as the amount of the money premium to be received by govern- 
ment for a charter of this kind ? 

But, Sir, there is a larger and a much more just view of this 
subject. The bill was not passed for the purpose of benefiting 
the present stockholders. Their benefit, if any, is incidental and 
collateral. Nor was it passed on any idea that they had a right 
to a renewed charter, although the message argues against such 
right, as if it had been somewhere set up and asserted. No 
‘such right has been asserted by any body. Congress passed the 
bill, not as a bounty or a favor to the present stockholders, nor 
to comply with any demand of right on their part; but to pro- 
mote great public interests, for great public objects. Every bank 
must have some stockholders, unless it be such a bank as the 
President has recommended, and in regard to which he seems 
not likely to find much concurrence of other men’s opinions; and 
if the stockholders, whoever they may be, conduct the affairs of 
the bank prudently, the expectation is always, of course, that 
they will make it profitable to themselves, as well as useful to 
the public. If a bank charter is not to be granted, becatse, to 
some extent, it may be profitable to the stockholders, no charter 
can be granted. ‘The objection lies against all banks. 

Sir, the object aimed at by such institutions is to connect the 
public safety and convenience with private interests. It has 
been found by experience, that banks are safest under private 
management, and that government banks are among the most 
‘dangerous of all inventions. Now, Sir, the whole drift of the 
message is to reverse the settled judgment of all the civilized 
-~world, and to set up government banks, independent of private 
interest or private control. or this purpose the message labors, 
even beyond the measure of all its other labors, to create jeal- 
ousies and prejudices, on the ground of the alleged benefit which 
individuals will derive from the renewal of this charter. Much 
less effort is made to show that government, or the public, will 
be injured by the bill, than that individuals will profit by it. 
Following up the impulses of the same spirit, the message goes 
on gravely to allege, that the act, as passed by Congress, pro- 
poses to make a present of some millions of dollars to foreigners 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 425 


because a portion of the stock is held by foreigners. Sir, how 
would this sort of argument apply to other cases? ‘The Presi- 
dent has shown himself not only willing, but anxious, to pay off 
the three per cent. stock of the United States at par, notwith- 
standing that it is notorious that foreigners are owners of the 
greater part of it. Why should he not call that a donation to 
foreigners of many millions ? 

I will not dwell particularly on this part of the message. Its 
tone and its arguments are all in the same strain. It speaks of 
the certain gain of the present stockholders, of the value of the 
monopoly; it says that all monopolies are granted at the ex- 
pense of the public; that the many millions which this bill be- 
stows on the stockholders come out of the earnings of the peo- 
ple; that, if government sells monopolies, it ought to sell them 
in open market; that it is an erroneous idea, that the present 
stockholders have a prescriptive right either to the favor or the 
bounty of government; that the stock is in the hands of a few, 
and that the whole American people are excluded from competi- 
tion in the purchase of the monopoly. ‘To all this I say, again, 
that much of it is assumption without proof; much of it is an 
argument against that which nobody has maintained or asserted ; 
and the rest of it would be equally strong against any charter, 
at any time. These objections existed in their full strength, 
whatever that was, against the first bank. ‘They existed, in like 
manner, against the present bank at its creation, and will al- 
ways exist against all banks. Indeed, all the fault found with 
the bill now before us is, that it proposes to continue the bank 
substantially as it now exists. “ All the objectionable princi- 
ples of the existing corporation,” says the message, “and most 
of its odious features, are retained without alleviation”; so that 
the message is aimed against the bank, as it has existed from 
the first, and against any and all others resembling it in its gen- 
eral features. 

Allow me, now, Sir, to take notice of an argument founded 
on the practical operation of the bank. That argument is this. 
Little of the stock of the bank is held in the West, the capital 
being chiefly owned by citizens of the Southern and Hastern 
States, and by foreigners. But the Western and Southwestern 
States owe the bank a heavy debt, so heavy that the interest 
amounts to a million six hundred thousand a year. ‘This inter- 

36 * 


426 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


est is carried to the Eastern States, or to Kurope, annually, and 
its payment is a burden on the people of the West, and a drain 
of their currency, which no country can bear without inconven- 
ience and distress. The true character and the whole value of 
this argument are manifest by the mere statement of it. The 
people of the West are, fromm their situation, necessarily large 
borrowers. They need money, capital, and they borrow it, be- 
cause they can derive a benefit from its use, much beyond the 
interest which they pay. ‘They borrow at six per cent. of the 
bank, although the value of money with them is at least as high 
as eight. Nevertheless, although they borrow at this low rate 
of interest, and although they use all they borrow thus profita- 
bly, yet they cannot pay the interest without “inconvenience 
and distress”; and then, Sir, follows the logical conclusion, 
that, although they cannot pay even the interest without incon- 
venience and distress, yet less than four years is ample time 
for the bank to call in the whole, both principal and interest, 
without causing more than a light pressure. ‘This is the argu- 
ment. 

Then follows another, which may be thus stated. It is com- 
petent to the States to tax the property of their citizens vested 
in the stock of this bank; but the power is denied of taxing the 
stock of foreigners; therefore the stock will be worth ten or fif- 
teen per cent. more to foreigners than to residents, and will of 
course inevitably leave the country, and make the American 
people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due the 
bank, and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions of 
specie every year, to pay the bank dividends. 

Mr. President, arguments like these might be more readily 
disposed of, were it not that the high and official source from 
which they proceed imposes the necessity of treating them with 
respect. In the first place, it may safely be denied that the 
stock of the bank is any more valuable to foreigners than to our 
own Citizens, or an object of greater desire to them, except in so 
far as capital may be more abundant in the foreign country, and 
therefore its owners more in want of opportunity of investment. 
‘The foreign stockholder enjoys no exemption from taxation. 
He is, of course, taxed by his own government for his incomes, 
‘derived fiom this as well as other property; and this is a full 
‘answer to the whole statement. But it may be added, in the 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 42? 


second place, that it is not the practice of civilized states to tax 
the property of foreigners under such circumstances. Do’ we 
tax, or did we ever tax, the foreign holders of our public debt? 
Does Pennsylvania, New York, or Ohio tax the foreign holders 
of stock in the loans contracted by either of these States? Cer- 
tainly not. Sir, I must confess I had little expected to see, on 
such an occasion as the present, a labored and repeated attempt 
to produce an impression on the public opinion unfavorable to 
the bank, from the circumstance that foreigners are among its 
stockholders. I have no hesitation in saying, that I deem such 
a train of remark as the message contains on this point, com- 
ing from the President of the United States, to be injurious to 
the ¢redit and character of the country abroad; because it. man- 
ifests a jealousy, a lurking disposition not to respect the proper- 
ty, of foreigners invited hither by our own laws. And, Sir, what 
is its tendency but to excite this jealousy, and create groundless 
prejudices ? 

From the commencement of the government, it has been 
thought desirable to invite, rather than to repel, the introduction 
of foreign capital. Our stocks have all been open to foreign 
subscriptions ;, and the State banks, in like manner, are free to 
foreign ownership. Whatever State has created a debt has 
been willing that foreigners should become purchasers, and de- 
sirous of it. How long is it, Sir, since Congress itself passed a 
law vesting new powers in the President of the United States 
over the cities in this District, for the very purpose of increasing 
their credit abroad, the better to enable them to borrow mouey 
to pay their subscriptions to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal? 
It is easy to say that there is danger to liberty, danger to inde- 
pendence, in a bank open to foreign stockholders, because it is 
easy to say any thing. But neither reason nor experience proves 
any such danger. ‘The foreign stockholder cannot be a director. 
He has no voice even in the choice of directors. His money is 
placed entirely in the management of the directors appointed by 
the President and Senate and by the American stockholders. 
So far as there is dependence or influence either way, it is to 
ihe disadvantage of the foreign stockholder. He has parted 
with the control over his own property, instead of exercising 
control over the property or over the actions of others. And, 
Sir, let it now be added, in further answer to this class of objec 


428 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


tions, that experience has abundantly confuted them all. ‘This 
government has existed forty-three years, and has maintained, 
in full being and operation, a bank, such as is now proposed to 
be renewed, for thirty-six years out of the forty-three. We have 
never for a moment had a bank not subject to every one of 
these objections. Always, foreigners might be stockholders ; 
always, foreign stock has been exempt from State taxation, as 
much as at present; always, the same power and privileges; 
always, all that which is now called a “monopoly,” a “ gratu- 
ity,” a “present,” have been possessed by the bank. And yet 
there has been found no danger to liberty, no introduction of 
foreign influence, and no accumulation of irresponsible power in 
a few hands. I cannot but hope, therefore, that the people of 
the United States will not now yield up their judgment to those 
notions which would reverse all our best experience, and per- 
suade us to discontinue a useful institution from the influence 
of vague and unfounded declamation against its danger to the 
public liberties. Our liberties, indeed, must stand upon very 
frail foundations, if the government cannot, without endanger- 
ing them, avail itself of those common facilities, in the collection 
of its revenues and the management of its finances, which all 
other governments, in commercial countries, find useful and ne- 
cessary. 

In order to justify its alarm for the security of our independ- 
ence, the message supposes a case. It supposes that the bank 
should pass principally into the hands of the subjects of a for- 
eign country, and that we should be involved in war with that 
country, and then it exclaims, “ What would be our condition ?” 
Why, Sir, it is plain that all the advantages would be on our 
side. ‘The bank would still be our institution, subject to our 
own laws, and all its directors elected by ourselves; and our 
means would be enhanced, not by the confiscation and plunder, 
but by the proper use, of the foreign capital in our hands. And, 
Sir, it is singular enough, that this very state of war, from which 
this argument against a bank is drawn, is the very thing which, 
more than all others, convinced the country and the government 
of the necessity of a national bank. So much was the want of 
such an institution felt in the late war, that the subject engaged 
the attention of Congress, constantly, from the declaration of 
that war down to the time when the existing bank was actually 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 425 


established; so that in this respect, as well as in others, the 
argument of the message is directly opposed to the whole ex- 
perience of the government, and to the general and long-settled 
convictions of the country. 

I now proceed, Sir, to a few remarks upon the President’s 
constitutional objections to the bank; and I cannot forbear to 
say, in regard to them, that he appears to me to have assumed 
very extraordinary grounds of reasoning. He denies that the 
constitutionality of the bank is a settled question. If it be not, 
will it ever become so, or what disputed question ever can be 
settled? Ihave already observed, that for thirty-six years out 
of the forty-three during which the government has been in 
being, a bank has existed, such as is now proposed to be con- 
tinued. 

As early as 1791, after great deliberation, the first bank char- 
ter was passed by Congress, and approved by President Wash- 
ington. It established an institution, resembling, in all things 
now objected to, the present bank. ‘That bank, like this, could 
take lands in payment of its debts; that charter, like the present, 
gave the States no power of taxation; it allowed foreigners to 
hold stock; it restrained Congress from creating other banks. 
It gave also exclusive privileges, and in all particulars it was, 
according to the doctrine of the message, as objectionable as 
that now existing. ‘That bank continued twenty years. In 
1816, the present institution was established, and has been ever 
since in full operation. Now, Sir, the question of the power of 
Congress to create such institutions has been contested in every 
manner known to our Constitution and laws. The forms of 
the government furnish no new mode in which to try this ques- 
tion. It has been discussed over and over again, in Congress ; 
it has been argued and solemnly adjudged in the Supreme 
Court; every President, except the present, has considered it a 
settled question; many of the State legislatures have instructed 
their Senators to vote for the bank; the tribunals of the States, 
in every instance, have supported its constitutionality; and, be- 
yond all doubt and dispute, the general public opinion of the 
country has at all times given, and does now give, its full sane- 
tion and approbation to the exercise of this power, as being a 
constitutional power. ‘There has been no opinion questioning 
the power expressed or intimated, at any time, by either house 


430 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


of Congress, by any President, or by any respectable judicial 
tribunal. Now, Sir, if this practice of near forty years, if these 
repeated exercises of the power, if this solemn adjudication of 
the Supreme Court, with the concurrence and approbation of 
public opinion, do not settle the question, how is any question 
ever to be settled, about which any one may choose to raise a 
doubt ? 

The argument of the message upon the Congressional pre- 
cedents is either a bold and gross fallacy, or else it is an asser- 
tion without proofs, and against known facts. The message 
admits, that, in 1791, Congress decided in favor of a bank; but 
it adds, that another Congress, in 1811, decided against it. 
Now, if it be meant that, in 1811, Congress decided against the 
bank on constitutional ground, then the assertion is wholly in- 
correct, and against notorious fact. It is perfectly well known, 
that many members, in both houses, voted against the bank in 
1811, who had no doubt at all of the constitutional power of 
Congress. ‘They were entirely governed by other reasons given 
at the time. I appeal, Sir, to the honorable member from Mary- 
land, who was then a member of the Senate, and voted against 
the bank, whether he, and others who were on the same side, ’ 
did not give those votes on other well-known grounds, and not 
at all on constitutional ground ? 


General Smith here rose, and said, that he yoted against the bank in 
1811, but not at all on constitutional grounds, and had no doubt such 
was the case with other members. 


We all know, Sir, the fact to be as the gentleman from Mary- 
land has stated it. Every man who recollects, or who has read, 
the political occurrences of that day, knows it. Therefore, if the 
message intends to say, that in 1811 Congress denied the exist: 
ence of any such constitutional power, the declaration is un- 
warranted, and altogether at variance with the facts. If, on the 
other hand, it only intends to say, that Congress decided against 
the proposition then before it on some other grounds, then it al- 
leges that which is nothing at all to the purpose. The argu- 
ment, then, either assumes for truth that which is not true, or 
else the whole statement is immaterial and futile. 

But whatever value others may attach to this argument, the 
message thinks so highly of it, that it proceeds to repeat. it. 


OF 'THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL 431 


“One Congress,” it says, “in 1815, decided against a bank; 
another, in 1816, decided in its favor. There is nothing in pre- 
cedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought 
to weigh in favor of the act before me.” » Now, Sir, since it is 
known to the whole country, one cannot but wonder how it 
should remain unknown to the President, that Congress did not 
decide against a bank in 1815. On the contrary, that very 
Congress passed a bill for erecting a bank, by very large ma- 
jorities. In one form, it is true, the bill failed in the House of 
Representatives; but the vote was reconsidered, the bill recom- 
mitted, and finally passed by a vote of one hundred and twenty 
to thirty-nine. There is, therefore, not only no solid ground, but 
not even any plausible pretence, for the assertion, that Congress 
in 1815 decided against the bank. That very Congress passed 
a bill to create a bank, and its decision, therefore, is precisely 
the other way, and is a direct practical precedent in favor of the 
constitutional power. What are we to think of a constitutional 
argument which deals in this way with historical facts? When 
the message declares, as it does declare, that there is nothing in 
precedent which ought to weigh in favor of the power, it sets at 
naught repeated acts of Congress affirming the power, and it 
also states other acts, which were in fact, and which are well 
known to have been, directly the reverse of what the message 
represents them. ‘There is not, Sir, the slightest reason to think 
that any Senate or any House of Representatives, ever assem- 
bled under the Constitution, contained a majority that doubted 
the constitutional existence of the power of Congress to estab- 
lish a bank. Whenever the question has arisen, and has been 
decided, it has always been decided one way. ‘The legislative 
precedents all assert and maintain the power; and these legis- 
lative precedents have been the law of the land for almost forty 
years. They settle the construction of the Constitution, and 
sanction the exercise of the power in question, so far as these 
effects can ever be produced by any legislative precedents what- 
ever. 

But the President does not admit the authority of precedent. 
Sir, I have always found, that those who habitually deny most 
vehemently the general force of precedent, and assert most 
strongly the supremacy of private opinion, are yet, of all men, 
most tenacious of that very authority of precedent, whenever it 


432 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


happens to be in their favor. I beg leave to ask, Sir, upon what 
ground, except that of precedent, and precedent alone, the Pres- 
ident’s friends have placed his power of removal from office. No 
such power is given by the Constitution, in terms, nor any- 
where intimated, throughout the whole of it; no paragraph or 
clause of that instrument recognizes such a power. ‘To say the 
least, it is as questionable, and has been as often questioned, as 
the power of Congress to create a bank; and, enlightened by 
what has passed under our own observation, we now see that 
it is of all powers the most capable of flagrant abuse. Now, — 
Sir, I ask again, What becomes of this power, if the authority 
of precedent be taken away? It has all along been denied to 
exist; it is nowhere found in the Constitution; and its recent 
exercise, or, to call things by their right names, its recent abuse, 
has, more than any other single cause, rendered good men either 
cool in their affections toward the government of their country, 
or doubtful of its long continuance. Yet there is precedent in 
favor of this power, and the President exercises it. We know, 
Sir, that, without the aid of that precedent, his acts could never 
have received the sanction of this body, even at a time when 
his voice was somewhat more potential here than it now is, or, 
as I trust, ever again will be. Does the President, then, reject 
the authority of all precedent except what it is suitable to his 
own purpose to use? And does he use, without stint or meas- 
ure, all precedents which may augment his own power, or grat- 
ify his own wishes ? 

But if the President thinks lightly of the authority of Congress 
in construing the Constitution, he thinks still more lightly of the 
authority of the Supreme Court. He asserts a right of individ- 
ual judgment on constitutional questions, which is totally in- 
consistent with any proper administration of the government, or 
any regular execution of the laws. Social disorder, entire uncer- 
tainty in regard to individual rights and individual duties, the 
cessation of legal authority, confusion, the dissolution of free 
government, — all these are the inevitable consequences of the 
principles adopted by the message, whenever they shall be car- 
ried to their full extent. Hitherto it has been thought that the 
final decision of constitutional questions belonged to the su- 
preme judicial tribunal. ‘The very nature of free government, 
it has been supposed, enjoins this; and our Constitution, more- 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 433 


over, has been understood so to provide, clearly and express- 
ly. It is true, that each branch of the legislature has an ur- 
doubted right, in the exercise of its functions, to consider the 
constitutionality of a law proposed to be passed. This is nat- 
urally a part of its duty; and neither branch can be com- 
pelled to pass any law, or do any other act, which it deems to 
be beyond the reach of its constitutional power. ‘The President 
has the same right, when a bill is presented for his approval; 
for he is, doubtless, bound to consider, in all cases, whether 
such bill be compatible with the Constitution, and whether he 
can approve it consistently with his oath of office. But when 
a law has been passed by Congress, and approved by the Pres- 
ident, it is now no longer in the power, either of the same Pres- 
ident, or his successors, to say whether the law is constitutional’ 
or not. He is not at liberty to disregard it; he is not at liberty 
to feel or to affect “constitutional scruples,” anc to sit in judg-. 
ment himself on the validity of a statute of the government, and. 
to nullify it, if he so chooses. After a law has passed through: 
all the requisite forms; after it has received the requisite legis-. 
lative sanction and the executive approval, the question of 
its constitutionality then becomes a judicial question, and: 
a judicial question alone. In the courts that question may 
be raised, argued, and adjudged; it can be adjudged nowhere 
else. | 
The President is as much bound by the law as any private 
citizen, and can no more contest its validity than any private 
citizen. He may refuse to obey the law, and so may a private 
citizen; but both do it at their own peril, and neither of them 
can settle the question of its validity. 'The President may saya 
law is unconstitutional, but he is not the judge. Who is to de- 
cide that question? ‘The judiciary alone possesses this unques- 
tionable and hitherto unquestioned right. ‘The judiciary is the 
constitutional tribunal of appeal for the citizens, against both. 
Congress and the executive, in regard to the constitutionality 
of laws. It has this jurisdiction expressly conferred upon it, and 
when it has decided the question, its judgment must, from the 
very nature of all judgments that are final,,and from which 
there is no appeal, be conclusive. Hitherto, this opinion, and a 
correspondent practice, have prevailed, in America, with all wise 
and considerate men. If it were otherwise, there would be no 
VOL, III. 37 


434 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


* 

government of laws; but we should all live under the govern- 
ment, the rule, the caprices, of individuals. If we depart from 
the observance of these salutary principles, the executive power 
becomes at once purely despotic; for the President, if the principle 
and the reasoning of the message be sound, may either execute 
or not execute the laws of the land, according to his sovereign 
pleasure. He may refuse to put into execution one law, pro- 
nounced valid by all branches of the government, and yet exe- 
cute another, which may have been by constitutional authority 
pronounced void. 

On the argument of the message, the President of the United 
States holds, under a new pretence and a new name, a dispens- 
ing power over the laws as absolute as was claimed by James 
the Second of England, a month before he was compelled to fly 
the kingdom. ‘That which is now claimed by the President is 
in truth nothing Jess, and nothing else, than the old dispensing 
power asserted by the kings of England in the worst of times; 
the very climax, indeed, of all the preposterous pretensions of 
the Tudor and the Stuart races. According to the doctrines 
put forth by the President, although Congress may have passed 
a law, and although the Supreme Court may have pronounced 
it constitutional, yet it is, nevertheless, no law at all, if he, in his 
good pleasure, sees fit to deny it effect; in other words, to repeal 
and annul it. Sir, no President and no public man ever before 
advanced such doctrines in the face of the nation. 'There never 
before was a moment in which any President would have been 
tolerated in asserting such a claim to despotic power. After 
Congress has passed the law, and after the Supreme Court has 
pronounced its judgment on the very point in controversy, the 
President has set up his own private judgment against its con- 
stitutional interpretation. It is to be remembered, Sir, that it is 
the present law, it is the act of 1816, it is the present charter of 
the bank, which the President pronounces to be unconstitutional. 
It is no bank to be created, it is no law proposed to be passed, 
which he denounces; it is the law now existing, passed by Con- 
gress, approved by President Madison, and sanctioned by a 
solemn judgment of the Supreme Court, which he now declares 
unconstitutional, and which, of course, so far as it may depend 
‘on him, cannot be executed. If these opinions of the President 
‘be maintained, there is an end of all law and all judicial author- 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 435 
* 

ity. Statutes are but recommendations, judgments no more 
than opinions. Both are equally destitute of binding foree. 
Such a universal power as is now claimed for him, a power of 
judging over the laws and over the decisions of the judiciary, is 
nothing else but pure despotism. If conceded to him, it makes 
him at once what Louis the Fourteenth proclaimed himself to 
be when he said, “I am the State.” 

The Supreme Court has unanimously declared and adjudged 
that the existing bank 7s created by a constitutional law of Con- 
gress. As has been before observed, this bank, so far as the 
present question is concerned, is like that which was established 
in 1791 by Washington, and sanctioned by the great men of 
that day. In every form, therefore, in which the question can be 
raised, it has been raised and has been settled. Every process 
and every mode of trial known to the Constitution and laws have 
been exhausted, and always and without exception the decision 
has been in favor of the validity of the law. But all this prac- 
tice, all this precedent, all this public approbation, all this sol- 
emn adjudication directly on the point, is to be disregarded and 
rejected, and the constitutional power flatly denied. And, Sir, 
if we are startled at this conclusion, our surprise will not be 
lessened when we examine the argument by which it is main- 
tained. 

By the Constitution, Congress is authorized to pass all laws 
“necessary and proper” for carrying its own legislative pow 
ers into effect. Congress has deemed a bank to be “neces- 
sary and proper” for these purposes, and it has therefore estab- 
lished a bank. But although the law has been passed, and the 
bank established, and the constitutional validity of its charter 
solemnly adjudged, yet the President pronounces it unconstitu- 
tional, because some of the powers bestowed on the bank are, in 
his opinion, not necessary or proper. It would appear that 
powers which in 1791 and in 1816, in the time of Washington 
and in the time of Madison, were deemed “ necessary and 
proper,” are no longer to be so regarded, and therefore the bank 
is unconstitutional. It has really come to this, that the consti- 
tutionality of a bank is to depend upon the opinion which one 
particular man may form of the utility or necessity of some of 
the clauses in its charter! If that individual chooses to think 
that a particular power contained in the charter is not necessary 


436 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


to the proper constitution of the bank, then the act is unconsti- 
‘tutional! 

Hitherto it has always been supposed that the question was 
‘of a very different nature. It has been thought that the policy 
of granting a particular charter may be materially dependent on 
the structure and organization and powers of the proposed insti- 
tution. But its general constitutionality has never before been 
understood to turn on such points. ‘This would be making its 
constitutionality depend on subordinate questions; on questions 
of expediency and questions of detail; upon that which one 
man may think necessary, and another may not. If the consti- 
tutional question were made to hinge on matters of this kind, 
how could it ever be decided? All would depend on conjecture ; 
on the complexional feeling, on the prejudices, on the passions, 
of individuals; on more or less practical skill or correct judg- 
ment in regard to banking operations among those who should 
be the judges; on the impulse of momentary interests, party 
‘objects, or personal purposes. Put the question in this manner 
to a court of seven judges, to decide whether a particular 
bank was constitutional, and it might be doubtful whether 
they could come to any result, as they might well hold very 
various opinions on the practical utility of many clauses of the 
charter. 

The question in that case would be, not whether the bank, in 
its general frame, character, and objects, was a proper instru- 
ment to carry into effect the powers of the government, but 
whether the particular powers, direct or incidental, conferred on 
a particular bank, were better calculated than all others to give 
success to its operations. For if not, then the charter, according 
‘to this sort of reasoning, would be unwarranted by the Consti- 
tution. ‘This mode of construing the Constitution is. certainly 
a novel discovery. Its merits belong entirely to the President 
and his advisers. According to this rule of interpretation, if the 
President should be of opinion, that the capital of the bank was 
larger, by a thousand dollars, than it ought to be; or that the 
time for the continuance of the charter was a year too long; or 
that it was unnecessary to require it, under penalty, to pay spe- 
cie; or needless to provide for punishing, as forgery, the coun- 
terfeiting of its bills, — either of these reasons would be sufh- 
cient to render the charter, in his opinion, unconstitutional, in- 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 437 


valid, and nugatory. This is a legitimate conclusion from the 
argument. Such a view of the subject has certainly never be- 
fore been taken. ‘This train of reasoning has hitherto not been 
heard within the halls of Congress, nor has any one ventured 
upon it before the tribunals of justice. The first exhibition, its 
first appearance, as an argument, is in a message of the Presi- 
dent of the United States. 

According to that mode of construing the Constitution which 
was adopted by Congress in 1791, and approved by Washing- 
ton, and which has been sanctioned by the judgment of the Su- 
preme Court, and affirmed by the practice of nearly forty years, 
the question upon the constitutionality of the bank involves two 
inquiries. First, whether a bank, in its general character, and 
with regard to the general objects with which banks are usually 
connected, be, in itself, a fit means, a suitable instrument, to carry 
into effect the powers granted to the government. If it be so, 
then the second, and the only other question is, whether the pow- 
ers given in a particular charter are appropriate for a bank. If 
they are powers which are appropriate for a bank, powers which 
Congress may fairly consider to be useful to the bank or the 
country, then Congress may confer these powers; because the 
discretion to be exercised in framing the constitution of the bank 
belongs to Congress. One man may think the granted powers 
not indispensable to the particular bank; another may suppose 
them injudicious, or injurious; a third may imagine that other 
powers, if granted in their stead, would be more beneficial ; but 
all these are matters of expediency, about which men may 
differ; and the power of deciding upon them belongs to Con- 
gress. 

I again repeat, Sir, that if, for reasons of this kind, the Presi- 
dent sees fit to negative a bill, on the ground of its being inex- 
pedient or impolitic, he has a right to do so. But remember, 
Sir, that we are now on the constitutional question; remember, 
that the argument of the President is, that, because powers were 
given to the bank by the charter of 1816 which he thinks un- 
necessary, that charter is unconstitutional. Now, Sir, it will 
hardly be denied, or rather it was not denied or doubted before 
this message came to us, that, if there was to be a bank, the 
powers and duties of that bank must be prescribed in the law 
creating it. Nobody but Congress, it has been thought, could 

37 * 


438 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


grant these powers and privileges, or prescribe their limitations. 
It is true, indeed, that the message pretty plainly intimates, that 
the President should have been /irst consulted, and that he 
should have had the framing of the bill; but we are not yet ac- 
customed to that order of things in enacting laws, nor do I know 
a parallel to this claim, thus now brought forward, except that, 
in some peculiar cases in England, highly affecting the royal pre- 
rogative, the assent of the monarch is necessary, before either 
the House of Peers, or his Majesty’s faithful Commons, are 
permitted to act upon the subject, or to entertain its considera- 
tion. But supposing, Sir, that our accustomed forms and our 
republican principles are still to be followed, and that a law cre- 
ating a bank is, like all other laws, to originate with Congress, 
and that the President has nothing to do with it till it is pre- 
sented for his approval, then it is clear that the powers and du- 
ties of a proposed bank, and all the terms and conditions annexed 
to it, must, in the first place, be settled by Congress. 

This power, if constitutional at all, is only constitutional in 
the hands of Congress. Anywhere else, its exercise would be 
plain usurpation. If, then, the authority to decide what powers 
ought to be granted to a bank belong to Congress, and Con- 
gress shall have exercised that power, it would seem little better 
than absurd to say, that its act, nevertheless, would be uncon- 
stitutional and invalid, if, in the opinion of a third party, it had 
misjudged, on a question of expediency, in the arrangement of 
details. According to such a mode of reasoning, a mistake in 
the exercise of jurisdiction takes away the jurisdiction. If Con- 
eress decide right, its decision may stand; if it decide wrong, 
its decision is nugatory; and whether its decision be right or 
wrong another is to judge, although the original power of mak- 
ing the decision must be allowed to be exclusively in Congress. 
This is the end to which the argument of the message will con- 
duct its followers. 

Sir, in considering the authority of Congress to invest the 
bank with the particular powers granted to it, the inquiry is not, 
and cannot be, how appropriate these powers are, but whether 
they be at all appropriate ; whether they come within the range 
of a just and honest discretion; whether Congress may fairly 
esteem them to be necessary. The question is not, Are they 
ithe fittest means, the best means? or whether the bank might 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 439 


not be established without them; but the question is, Are 
they such as Congress, bond fide, may have regarded as ap- 
propriate to the end? If any other rule were to be adopted, 
nothing could ever be settled. A law would be constitutional 
to-day and unconstitutional to-morrow. — Its constitutionality 
would altogether depend upon individual opinion on a mat- 
ter of mere expediency. Indeed, such a case as that is now 
actually before us. Mr. Madison deemed the powers given 
to the bank, in its present charter, proper and necessary. He 
held the bank, therefore, to be constitutional. But the present 
President, not acknowledging that the power of deciding on 
these points rests with Congress, nor with Congress and the 
then President, but setting up his own opinion as the standard, 
declares the law now in being unconstitutional, because the 
powers granted by it are, in his estimation, not necessary and 
proper. I pray to be informed, Sir, whether, upon similar 
erounds of reasoning, the President’s own scheme for a bank, if 
Congress should do so unlikely a thing as to adopt it, would not 
become unconstitutional also, if it should so happen that his 
successor should hold his bank in as light esteem as he holds 
those established under the auspices of Washington and Mad- 
ison ? 

If the reasoning of the message be well founded, it is clear 
that the charter of the existing bank is not a law. The bank 
has no legal existence; it is not responsible to government; if 
has no authority to act; it is incapable of being an agent; the 
President may treat it as a nullity to-morrow, withdraw from 
it all the public deposits, and set afloat all the existing nationa: 
arrangements of revenue and finance. It is enough to state 
these monstrous consequences, to show that the doctrine, prin- 
ciples, and pretensions of the message are entirely inconsistent 
with a government of laws. If that which Congress has en- 
acted, and the Supreme Court has sanctioned, be not the law of 
the land, then the reign of law has ceased, and the reign of in- 
dividual opinion has already begun. 

The President, in his commentary on the details of the exist- 
ing bank charter, undertakes to prove that one provision, and 
another provision, is not necessary and proper; because, as he 
thinks, the same objects proposed to be accomplished by them 
might have been better attained in another mode; and therefore 


440 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


such provisions are not necessary, and so not warranted by the 
Constitution. Does not this show, that, according to his own 
mode of reasoning, his own scheme would not be constitutional, 
since another scheme, which probably most people would think 
a better one, might be substituted for it? Perhaps, in any bank 
charter, there may be no provisions which may be justly regarded 
as absolutely indispensable; since it is probable that for any 
of them some others might be substituted. No bank, therefore, 
ever could be established; because there never has been, and 
never could be, any charter, of which every provision should ap- 
pear to be indispensable, or necessary and proper, in the judg- 
ment of every individual. ‘To admit, therefore, that there may 
be a constitutional bank, and yet to contend for such a mode of 
judging of its provisions and details as the message adopts, in- 
volves an absurdity. Any charter which may be framed may 
be taken up, and each power conferred by it successively denied, 
on the ground, that, in regard to each, either no such power is 
“necessary or proper” in a bank, or, which is the same thing in 
effect, some other power might be substituted for it, and supply 
its place. ‘That can never be necessary, in the sense in which 
the message understands that term, which may be dispensed 
with; and it cannot be said that any power may not be dis- 
pensed with, if there be some other which might be substituted 
for it, and which would accomplish the same end. Therefore, 
no bank could ever be constitutional, because none could be es- 
tablished which should not contain some provisions which might 
have been omitted, and their place supplied by others. 

Mr. President, I have understood the true and well-established 
doctrine to be, that, after it has been decided that it is compe- 
tent for Congress to establish a bank, then it follows, that. it 
may create such a bank as it judges, in its discretion, to be best, 
and invest it with all such power as it may deem fit and suita- 
ble; with this limitation, always, that all is to be done in the 
bona fide execution of the power to create a bank. If the grant- 
ed powers are appropriate to the professed end, so that the 
granting of them cannot be regarded as usurpation of authority 
by Congress, or an evasion of constitutional restrictions, under 
color of establishing a bank, then the charter is constitutional, 
whether these powers be thought indispensable by others or not, 
or whether even Congress itself deemed them absolutely indis 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 441 


pensable, or only thought them fit and suitable, or whether 
they are more or less appropriate to their end. It is enough 
that they are appropriate; it is enough that they are suited to 
produce the effects designed ; and no comparison is to be insti- 
tuted, in order to try their constitutionality, between them and 
others which may be suggested. A case analogous to the 
present is found in the constitutional power of Congress over 
the mail. ‘The Constitution says no more than that “ Congress 
shall have power to establish post-offices and post-roads ”; and, 
in the general clause, “ all powers necessary and proper” to give 
effect to this. In the execution of this power, Congress has 
protected the mail, by providing that robbery of it shall be pun- 
ished with death. Is this infliction of capital punishment con- 
stitutional? Certainly it is not, unless it be both “ proper and 
necessary.” The President may not think it necessary or prop- 
er; the law, then, according to the system of reasoning enforced 
by the message, is of no binding force, and the President may 
disobey it, and refuse to see it executed. 

The truth is, Mr. President, that if the general object, the 
subject-matter, properly belong to Congress, all its incidents be- 
long to Congress also. If Congress is to establish post-offices 
and post-roads, it may, for that end, adopt one set of regulations 
or another; and either would be constitutional. So the details 
of one bank are as constitutional as those of another, if they are 
confined fairly and honestly to the purpose of organizing the 
institution, and rendering it useful. One bank is as constitu- 
tional as another bank. If Congress possesses the power to 
make a bank, it possesses the power to make it efficient, and 
competent to produce the good expected from it. It may clothe 
it with all such power and privileges, not otherwise inconsistent 
with the Constitution, as may be necessary, in its own judg- 
ment, to make it what government deems it should be. It may 
confer on it such immunities as may induce individuals to be- 
come stockholders, and to furnish the capital; and since the ex- 
tent of these immunities and privileges is matter of discretion, 
and matter of opinion, Congress only can decide it, because 
Congress alone can frame or grant the charter. A charter, thus 
granted to individuals, becomes a contract with them, upon their 
compliance with its terms. ‘I'he bank becomes an agent, bound 
to perform certain duties, and entitled to certain stipulated rights 


442 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


and privileges, in compensation for the proper discharge of these 
duties; and all these stipulations, so long as they are appropri- 
ate to the object professed, and not repugnant to any other con- 
stitutional injunction, are entirely within the competency of 
Congress And yet, Sir, the message of the President toils 
through all the commonplace topics of monopoly, the right of 
taxation, the suffering of the poor, and the arrogance of the rich, 
with as much painful effort, as if one, or another, or all of them, 
had something to do with the constitutional question. 

What is called the “monopoly” is made the subject of re- 
peated rehearsal, in terms of special complaint. By this “ mo- 
nopoly,” I suppose, is understood the restriction contained in 
the charter, that Congress shall not, during the twenty years, 
create another bank. Now, Sir, let me ask, Who would think 
of creating a bank, inviting stockholders into it, with large in- 
vestments, Imposing upon it heavy duties, as connected with 
the government, receiving some millions of dollars as a bonus or 
premium, and yet retaining the power of granting, the next day, 
another charter, which would destroy the whole value of the 
first? If this be an unconstitutional restraint on Congress, the 
Constitution must be strangely at variance with the dictates 
both of good sense and sound morals. Did not the first Bank 
of the United States contain a similar restriction? And have 
not the States granted bank charters with a condition, that, if 
the charter should be accepted, they would not grant others? 
States have certainly done so; and, in some instances, where no 
bonus or premium was paid at all; but from the mere desire to 
give effect to the charter, by inducing individuals to accept it 
and organize the institution. The President declares that this 
restriction is not necessary to the efficiency of the bank; but 
that is the very thing which Congress and his predecessor in 
office were called on to decide, and which they did decide, when 
the one passed and the other approved the act. And he has 
now no more authority to pronounce his judgment on that act 
than any other individual in society. It is not his province to 
decide on the constitutionality of statutes which Congress has 
passed, and his predecessors approved. 

There is another sentiment in this part of the message, which 
we should hardly have expected to find in a paper which is sup- 
posed, whoever may have drawn it up, to have passed under the 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 443 


review of professional characters. The message declares, that 
this limitation to create no other bank is unconstitutional, be- 
cause, although Congress may use the discretion vested in them, 
“they may not limit the discretion of their successors.” This 
reason is almost too superficial to require an answer. Every 
one at all accustomed to the consideration of such subjects 
knows that every Congress can bind its successors to the same 
extent that it can bind itself. ‘The power of Congress is always 
the same; the authority of law always the same. It is true, we 
speak of the Twentieth Congress and the Twenty-first Congress ; 
but this is only to denote the period of time, or to mark the suc- 
cessive organizations of the House of Representatives under the 
successive periodical election of its members. As a politic body, 
as the legislative power of the government, Congress is always 
continuous, always identical. A particular Congress, as we 
speak of it, for instance, the present Congress, can no farther 
restrain itself from doing what it may choose to do at the next 
session, than it can restrain any succeeding Congress from doing 
what it may choose. Any Congress may repeal the act or law 
of its predecessor, if in its nature it. be repealable, just as it may 
repeal its own act; and if a law or an act be irrepealable in its 
nature, it can no more be repealed by a subsequent Congress 
than by that which passed it. All this is familiar to every body. 
And Congress, like every other legislature, often passes acts 
which, being in the nature of grants or contracts, are irrepeala- 
ble ever afterwards. The message, in a strain of argument 
which it is difficult to treat with ordinary respect, declares that 
this restriction on the power of Congress, as to the establishment 
of other banks, is a palpable attempt to amend the Constitution 
by an act of legislation. ‘The reason on which this observation 
purports to be founded is, that Congress, by the Constitution, 
is to have exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia; 
and when the bank charter declares that Congress will create 
no new bank within the District, it annuls this power of exclu- 
sive legislation! I must say, that this reasoning hardly rises 
high enough to entitle it to a passing notice. It would be do- 
ing it too much credit to call it plausible. No one needs to be 
informed that exclusive power of legislation is not unlimited 
power of legislation; and if it were, how can that legislative 
power be unlimited that cannot restrain itself, that cannot bind 


444 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


itself by contract? Whether as a government or as an individ- 
ual, that being is fettered and restrained which is not capable of 
binding itself by ordinary obligation. Every legislature binds 
itself, whenever it makes a grant, enters into a contract, bestows 
an office, or does any other act or thing which is in its nature 
irepealable. And this, instead of detracting from its legisla- 
tive power, is one of the modes of exercising that power. ‘The 
legislative power of Congress over the District of Columbia 
would not be full and complete, if it might not make just such 
a stipulation as the bank charter contains. 

As to the taxing power of the States, about which the mes- 
sage says so much, the proper answer to all it says is, that the 
States possess no power to tax any instrument of the govern- 
ment of the United States. It was no part of their power be- 
fore the Constitution, and they derive no such power from any 
of its provisions. It is nowhere given to them. Could a State 
tax the coin of the United States at the mint? Could a State 
lay a stamp tax on the process of the courts of the United 
States, and on custom-house papers? Could it tax the trans- 
portation of the mail, or the ships of war, or the ordnance, or the 
muniments of war, of the United States? ‘The reason that 
these cannot be taxed by a State is, that they are means and in- 
struments of the government of the United States. The estab- 
lishment of a bank exempt from State taxation takes away no 
existing right in a State. It leaves it all it ever possessed. But 
the complaint is, that the bank charter does not confer the power 
of taxation. This, certainly, though not a new (for the same ar- 
gument was urged here), appears to me to be a strange mode of 
asserting and maintaining State rights. The power of taxation 
is a sovereign power; and the President and those who think 
with him are of opinion, in a given case, that this sovereign 
power should be conferred on the States by an act of Congress. 
There is, if I mistake not, Sir, as little compliment to State 
sovereignty in this idea, as there is of sound constitutional 
doctrine. Sovereign rights held under the grant of an act 
of Congress present a proposition quite new in constitutional 
law. 

The President himself even admits that an instrument of the 
government of the United States ought not, as such, to be taxed 
by the States; yet he contends for such a power of taxing prop- 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 445 


erty connected with this instrument, and essential to its very 
being, as places its whole existence in the pleasure of the States. 
It is not enough that the States may tax all the property of all 
their own citizens, wherever invested or however employed. The 
complaint is, that the power of State taxation does not reach so 
far as to take cognizance over persons out of the State, and to 
tax them for a franchise lawfully exercised under the authority 
of the United States. Sir, when did the power of the States, 
or indeed of any government, go to such an extent as that? 
Clearly never. ‘The taxing power of all communities is neces- 
sarily and justly limited to the property of its own citizens, and 
to the property of others, having a distinct local existence as 
property, within its jurisdiction; it does not extend to rights and 
franchises, rightly exercised, under the authority of other govern- 
ments, nor to persons beyond its jurisdiction. As the Constitu- 
tion has left the taxing power of the States, so the bank char- 
ter leaves it. Congress has not undertaken either to take away, 
or to confer, a taxing power; nor to enlarge, or to restrain it; if 
it were to do either, I hardly know which of the two would be: 
the least excusable. 

I beg leave to repeat, Mr. President, that what I have now 
been considering are the President’s objections, not to the policy 
or expediency, but to the constitutionality of the bank; and: 
not to the constitutionality of any new or proposed bank, but 
of the bank as it now is, and as it has long existed. If the Pres- 
ident had declined to approve this bill because he thought the 
original charter unwisely granted, and the bank, in point of poli- 
cy and expediency, objectionable or mischievous, and in that 
view only had suggested the reasons now urged by him, his ar- 
gument, however inconclusive, would have been intelligible, and 
not, in its whole frame and scope, inconsistent with all well- 
established first principles. His rejection of the bill, in that case, 
would have been, no doubt, an extraordinary exercise of power ; 
but it would have been, nevertheless, the exercise of a power 
belonging to his office, and trusted by the Constitution to his 
discretion. But when he puts forth an array of arguments such 
as the message employs, not against the expediency of the bank, 
but against its constitutional existence, he confounds all distinc- 
tions, mixes questions of policy and questions of right together, 
and turns all constitutional restraints into mere matters of opin-- 

VOL. III. 38 


446 THE PRESIDENTIAL VETO 


ion. As far as its power extends, either in its direct effects or 
as a precedent, the message not only unsettles every thing which 
has been settled under the Constitution, but would show, also, 
that the Constitution itself is utterly incapable of any fixed con 
struction or definite interpretation, and. that there is no possibil- 
ity of establishing, by its authority, any practical limitations on 
the powers of the respective branches of the government. 

When the message denies, as it does, the authority of the Su- 
preme Court to decide on constitutional questions, it effects, so 
far as the opinion of the President and his authority can effect 
it, a complete change in our government. It does two things; 
first, it converts constitutional limitations of power into mere 
matters of opinion, and then it strikes the judicial department, 
as an efficient department, out of our system. But the message 
by no means stops even at this point. Having denied to Con- 
egress the authority of judging what powers may be constitution- 
ally conferred on a bank, and having erected the judgment of the 
President himself into a standard by which to try the’ constitu- 
tional character of such powers, and having denounced the au- 
thority of the Supreme Court to decide finally on constitutional 
questions, the message proceeds to claim for the President, not 
the power of approval, but the primary power, the power of orig- 
inating laws. ‘The President informs Congress, that he would 
have sent them such a charter, if it had been properly asked for, 
as they ought to confer. He very plainly intimates, that, in his 
opinion, the establishment of all laws, of this nature at least, 
belongs to the functions of the executive government; and that 
Congress ought to have waited for the manifestation of the ex- 
ecutive will, before it presumed to touch the subject.. Such, Mr. 
President, stripped of their disguises, are the real pretences set 
up in behalf of the executive power in this most extraordinary 
paper. ’ 

Mr. President, we have arrived at a new epoch. We are en- 
tering on experiments, with the government and the Constitu- 
tion of the country, hitherto untried, and of fearful and appall- 
ing aspect. ‘This message calls us to the contemplation of a 
future which little resembles the past. Its principles are at war 
with all that public opinion has sustained, and all which the ex- 
perience of the government has sanctioned. It denies first prin- 
ciples; it contradicts truths, heretofore received as indisputable. 


OF THE UNITED STATES BANK BILL. 447 


It denies to the judiciary the interpretation of law, and claims to 
divide with Congress the power of originating statutes. It ex- 
tends the grasp of executive pretension over every power of the 
government. But this is notall. It presents the chief magistrate 
of the Union in the attitude of arguing away the powers of that 
government over which he has been chosen to preside; and 
adopting for this purpose modes of reasoning which, even under 
the influence of all proper feeling towards high official station, it 
is difhieult to regard as respectable. It appeals to every preju- 
dice which may betray men into a mistaken view of their own 
interests, and to every passion which may lead them to disobey 
the impulses of their understanding. It urges all the specious 
topics of State rights and national encroachment against that 
which a great majority of the States have affirmed to be right- 
ful, and in which all of them have acquiesced. It sows, in an 
unsparing manner, the seeds of jealousy and ill-will against that 
government of which its author is the official head. It raises a 
cry, that liberty is in danger, at the very moment when it puts 
forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of. It 
affects alarm for the public freedom, when nothing endangers 
that freedom so much as its own unparalleled pretences. This, 
even, is not all. It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against 
the rich; it wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the 
purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resent- 
ments of other classes. It is a state paper which finds no topic 
too exciting for its use, no passion too inflammable for its ad- 
dress and its solicitation. 

Such is this message. It remains now for the people of the 
United States to choose between the principles here avowed and 
their government. These cannot subsist together. The one or 
the other must be rejected. If the sentiments of the message 
shall receive general approbation, the Constitution will have per- 
ished even earlier than the moment which its enemies originally 
allowed for the termination of its existence. It will not have 
survived to its fiftieth year. 


THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT BE- 
TWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES.* 


On the 21st of January, 1833, Mr. Wilkins, chairman of the Judiciary 
‘Committee of the Senate, introduced the bill further to provide for the 
collection of duties. On the 22d day of the same month, Mr. Calhoun 
submitted the following resolutions : — 

‘* Resolved, That the people of the several States composing these 
United States are united as parties to a constitutional compact, to which 
the people of each State acceded as a separate sovereign community, 
each binding itself by its own particular ratification; and that the union, 
of which the said compact is the bond, is a union between the States rat- 
ifying the same. 

‘** Resolved, That the people of the several States thus united by the 
constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a gen- 
eral government to carry into effect the objects for which they were 
formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite 
powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State 
to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own sep- 
arate government; and that whenever the general government assumes 
the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are un- 
authorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not 
made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would 
make its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers ; 
but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, 
without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, 
as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress. 

‘¢ Resolved, That the assertions, that the people of these United States, 
taken collectively as individuals, are now, or ever have been, united on 
the principle of the social compact, and, as such, are now formed into 
one nation or people, or that they have ever been so united in any one 


* A Speech delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the 16th of Feb- 
ruary, 1833, in reply to Mr. Calhoun’s Speech, on the Bill ‘‘ further to provide 
for the Collection of Duties on Imports.”’ 


THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT. 449 


stage of their political existence ; that the people of the several States 
composing the Union have not, as members thereof, retained their sover- 
eignty ; that the allegiance of their citizens has been transferred to the 
general government ; that they have parted with the right of punishing 
treason through their respective State governments ; and that they have 
not the right of judging in the last resort as to the extent of the powers 
reserved, and of consequence of those delegated, — are not only without 
foundation in truth, but are contrary to the most certain and _ plain his- 
torical facts, and the clearest deductions of reason; and that all exercise 
of power on the part of the general government, or any of its depart- 
ments, claiming authority from such erroneous assumptions, must of ne- 
cessity be unconstitutional, — must tend, directly and inevitably, to sub- 
vert the sovereignty of the States, to destroy the federal character of the 
Union, and to rear on its ruins a consolidated government, without con- 
. stitutional check or limitation, and which must necessarily terminate in 
the loss of liberty itself.” 

On Saturday, the 16th of February, Mr. Calhoun spoke in opposition 
to the bill, and in support of these resolutions. He was followed by Mr. 
Webster in this speech. 


Mr. Prestpent,— The gentleman from South Carolina has 
admonished us to be mindful of the opinions of those who shall 
come after us. We must take our chance, Sir, as to the light in 
which posterity will regard us. I do not decline its judgment, 
nor withhold myself from its scrutiny. Feeling that I am per- 
forming my public duty with singleness of heart and to the best 
of my ability, I fearlessly trust myself to the country, now and 
hereafter, and leave both my motives and my character to its 
decision. 

The gentleman has terminated his speech in a tone of threat 
and defiance towards this bill, even should it become a law of 
the land, altogether unusual in the halls of Congress. But I 
shall not suffer myself to be excited into warmth by his denun- 
ciation of the measure which I support. Among the feelings 
which at this moment fill my breast, not the least is that of re- 
gret at the position in which the gentleman has placed himself. 
Sir, he does himself no justice. The cause which he has es- 
poused finds no basis in the Constitution, no succor from public 
sympathy, no cheering from a patriotic community. He has no 
foothold on which to stand while he might display the powers 
of his acknowledged talents. Every thing beneath his feet is 

38* 


450 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


hollow and treacherous. He is like a strong man struggting 
in a morass: every effort to extricate himself only sinks him 
deeper and deeper. And I fear the resemblance may be carried 
still farther; I fear that no friend can safely come to his relief, 
that no one can approach near enough to hold out a helping 
hand, without danger of going down himself, also, into the bot- 
tomless depths of this Serbonian bog. 

The honorable gentleman has declared, that on the decision 
of the question now in debate may depend the cause of lib- 
erty itself. Iam of the same opinion; but then, Sir, the liberty 
which I think is staked on the contest is not political liberty, in 
any general and undefined character, but our own well-under- 
stood and long-enjoyed American liberty. 

Sir, I love Liberty no less ardently than the gentleman him- 
self, in whatever form she may have appeared in the progress of 
human history. As exhibited in the master states of antiquity, 
as breaking out again from amidst the darkness of the Middle 
Ages, and beaming on the formation of new communities in 
modern Europe, she has, always and everywhere, charms for 
me. Yet, Sir, it is our own liberty, guarded by constitutions 
and secured by union, it is that liberty which is our paternal 
inheritance, it is our established, dear-bought, peculiar American 
liberty, to which I am chiefly devoted, and the cause of which I 
now mean, to the utmost of my power, to maintain and defend. 

Mr. President, if I considered the constitutional question now 
before us as doubtful as it is important, and if I supposed that 
its decision, either in the Senate or by the country, was likely to 
be in any degree influenced by the manner in which I might 
now discuss it, this would be to me a moment of deep solici- 
tude. Such a moment has once existed. There has been a 
time, when, rising in this place, on the same question, I felt, I 
must confess, that something for good or evil to the Constitu- 
tion of the country might depend on an effort of mine. But cir- 
cumstances are changed. Since that day, Sir, the public opin- 
ion has become awakened to this great question; it has grasped 
it; it has reasoned upon it, as becomes an intelligent and patri- 
otic community, and has settled it, or now seems in the progress 
of settling it, by an authority which none can disobey, the au- 
thority of the people themselves. 

I shall not, Mr. President, follow the gentleman, step by step, 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 451 


through the course of his speech. Much of what he has said he 
has deemed necessary to the just explanation and defence of his 
own political character and conduct. On this I shall offer no 
comment. Much, too, has consisted of philosophical remark 
upon the general nature of political liberty, and the history of 
free institutions; and upon other topies, so general in their na- 
ture as to possess, In my opinion, only a remote bearing on the 
immediate subject of this debate. 

But the gentleman’s speech made some days ago, upon intro- 
ducing his resolutions, those resolutions themselves, and parts 
of the speech now just concluded, may, I presume, be justly re- 
garded as containing the whole South Carolina doctrine. That 
doctrine it is my purpose now to examine, and to compare it 
with the Constitution of the United States. I shall not consent, 
Sir, to make any new constitution, or to establish another form 
of government. I will not undertake to say what a constitu- 
tion for these United States ought to be. That question the 
people have decided for themselves; and I shall take the instru- 
ment as they have established it, and shall endeavor to maintain 
it, in its plain sense and meaning, against opinions and notions 
which, in my judgment, threaten its subversion. 

The resolutions introduced by the gentleman were apparently 
drawn up with care, and brought forward upon deliberation. I 
shall not be in danger, therefore, of misunderstanding him, or 
those who agree with him, if I proceed at once to these resolu- 
tions, and consider them as an authentic statement of those 
opinions upon the great constitutional question, by which the 
recent proceedings in South Carolina are attempted to be jus- 
tified. 

These resolutions are three in number. 

The third seems intended to enumerate, and to deny, the sev- 
eral opinions expressed in the President’s proclamation, respect- 
ing the nature and powers of this government. Of this third 
resolution, I purpose, at present, to take no particular notice. 

The first two resolutions of the honorable member affirm these 
propositions, viz. : — 

1. That the political system under which we live, and under 
which Congress is now assembled, is a compact, to which the 
people of the several States, as separate and sovereign commu: 
nities, are the parties. 


452 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


2. That these sovereign parties have a right to judge, each for 
itself, of any alleged violation of the Constitution by Congress ; 
and, in case of such violation, to choose, each for itself, its own 
mode and measure of redress. 

It is true, Sir, that the honorable member calls this a “ constitu- 
tional” compact; but still he affirms it to be a compact between 
sovereign States. What precise meaning, then, does he attach 
to the term constitutional? When applied to compacts between 
sovereign States, the term constitutional affixes to the word 
compact no definite idea. Were we to hear of a constitutional 
league or treaty between England and France, or a constitu- 
tional convention between Austria and Russia, we should not 
understand what could be intended by such a league, such a 
treaty, or such a convention. In these connections, the word is 
void of all meaning; and yet, Sir, it is easy, quite easy, to see 
why the honorable gentleman has used it in these resolutions. 
He cannot open the book, and look upon our written frame of 
government, without seeing that it is called a constitution. This 
may well be appalling to him. It threatens his whole doctrine 
of compact, and its darling derivatives, nullification and seces- 
sion, with instant confutation. Because, if he admits our instru- 
ment of government to be a constitution, then, for that very 
reason, it is not a compact between sovereigns; a constitution 
of government and a compact between sovereign powers being 
things essentially unlike in their very natures, and incapable of 
ever being the same. Yet the word constitution is on the very 
front of the instrument. He cannot overlook it. He seeks. 
therefore, to compremise the matter, and to sink all the substan- 
tial sense of the word, while he retains a resemblance of its 
sound. He introduces a new word of his own, viz. compact, as 
importing the principal idea, and designed to play the principal 
part, and degrades constitution into an insignificant, idle epithet, 
attached to compact. The whole then stands as a “constitu- 
tional compact”! And in this way he hopes to pass off a plau- 
sible gloss, as satisfying the words of the instrument. But he 
will find himself disappointed. Sir, I must say to the honorable 
gentleman, that, in our American political grammar, constTITU- 
TION is a noun substantive; it imports a distinct and clear idea 
of itself; and it is not to lose its importance and dignity, it is 
not to be turned into a poor, ambiguous, senseless, unmeaning 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 453 


adjective, for the purpose of accommodating any new set of po 
litical notions. Sir, we reject his new rules of syntax altogether. 
We will not give up our forms of political speech to the gram- 
marians of the school of nullification. By the Constitution, we 
mean, not a “constitutional compact,” but, simply and directly, 
the Constitution, the fundamental law; and if there be one word 
in the language which the people of the United States under- 
stand, this is that word. We know no more of a constitutional 
compact between sovereign powers, than we know of a constitu- 
tional indenture of copartnership, a constitutional deed of con- 
veyance, or a constitutional bill of exchange. But we know 
what the Constitution is; we know what the plainly written, 
fundamental law is; we know what the bond of our Union and 
the security of our liberties is; and we mean to maintain and to 
defend it, in its plain sense and unsophisticated meaning. 

The sense of the gentleman’s proposition, therefore, is not at 
all affected, one way or the other, by the use of this word. ‘That 
proposition still is, that our system of government is but a com- 
pact between the people of separate and sovereign States. 

Was it Mirabeau, Mr. President, or some other master of the 
human passions, who has told us that words are things? ‘They 
are indeed things, and things of mighty influence, not only in 
addresses to the passions and high-wrought feelings of mankind, 
but in the discussion of legal and political questions also; be- 
cause a just conclusion is often avoided, or a false one reached, 
by the adroit substitution of one phrase, or one word, for an- 
other. Of this we have, I think, another example in the resolu- 
tions before us. 

The first resolution declares that the people of the several 
States “acceded” to the Constitution, or to the constitutional 
compact, as it is called. This word “accede,” not found either 
in the Constitution itself, or in the ratification of it by any one 
of the States, has been chosen for use here, doubtless, not with- 
out a well-considered purpose, 

The natural converse of accession is secession; and, therefore, 
when it is stated that the people of the States acceded to the 
Union, it may be more plausibly argued that they may secede 
from it. If, in adopting the Constitution, nothing was done but 
acceding to a compact, nothing would seem necessary, in order 
to break it up, but to secede from the same compact. But the 


454 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


term is wholly out of place. Accession, as a word ajplied to 
political associations, implies coming into a league, treaty, or 
confederacy, by one hitherto a stranger to it; and secession im- 
plies departing from such league or confederacy. The people 
of the United States have used no such form of expression in 
establishing the present government. ‘They do not say that they 
accede to a league, but they declare that they ordain and estab- 
lish a Constitution. Such are the very words of the instrument 
itself; and in all the States, without an exception, the language 
used by their conventions was, that they “ ratified the Constitu- 
tion” ; some of them employing the additional words “ assented 
to” and “adopted,” but all of them “ratifying.” 

There is more importance than may, at first sight, appear, in 
the introduction of this new word by the honorable mover of 
these resolutions. Its adoption and use are indispensable to 
maintain those premises, from which his main conclusion is 
to be afterwards drawn. But before showing that, allow me to 
remark, that this phraseology tends to keep out of sight the just 
view of a previous political history, as well as to suggest wrong 
ideas as to what was actually done when the present Constitu- 
tion was agreed to. In 1789, and before this Constitution was 
adopted, the United States had already been in a union, more 
or less close, for fifteen years. At least as far back as the meet- 
ing of the first Congress, in 1774, they had been in some meas- 
ure, and for some national purposes, united together. Before the 
Confederation of 1781, they had declared independence jointly, 
and had carried on the war jointly, both by sea and land; and 
this not as separate States, but as one people. When, there- 
fore, they formed that Confederation, and adopted its articles 
as articles of perpetual union, they did not. come together for 
the first time; and therefore they did not speak of the States 
as acceding to the Confederation, although it was a league, 
and nothing but a league, and rested on nothing but plighted 
faith for its performance. Yet, even then, the States were not 
strangers to each other; there was a bond of union already sub- 
sisting between them; they were associated, united States ; and 
the object of the Confederation was to make a stronger and bet- 
ter bond of union. ‘Their representatives deliberated together 
on these proposed Articles of Confederation, and, being author- 
ized by their respective States, finally “ratified and confirmed” 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 455 


them. Inasmuch as they were already in union, they did not 
speak of acceding to the new Articles of Confederation, but of 
ratifying and confirming them; and this language was not used 
inadvertently, beeause, in the same instrument, accession is used 
in. its proper sense, when applied to Canada, which was alto- 
gether a stranger to the existing union. “ Canada,” says the 
eleventh article, “ acceding to this Confederation, and joining in 
the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into the 
Union.” 

Having thus used the terms ratify and confirm, even in regard 
to the old Confederation, it would have been strange indeed, if 
the people of the United States, after its formation, and when 
they came to establish the present Constitution, had spoken of 
the States, or the people of the States, as acceding to this Con- 
stitution. Such language would have been ill-suited to the occa- 
sion. It would have implied an existing separation or disunion 
among the States, such as never has existed since 1774. No 
such language, therefore, was used. The language actually em- 
ployed is, adopt, ratify, ordain, establish. 

Therefore, Sir, since any State, before she can prove her 
right to dissolve the Union, must show her authority to undo 
what has been done, no State is at liberty to secede, on the 
ground that she and other States have done nothing but accede. 
She must show that she has a right to reverse what has been 
ordained, to unsettle and overthrow what has been established, 


to reject what the people have adopted, and to break up what — 


they have ratified; because these are the terms which express 
_the transactions which have actually taken place. In other 
words, she must show her right to make a revolution. 

If, Mr. President, in drawing these resolutions, the honorable 
member had confined himself to the use of constitutional lan- 
guage, there would have been a wide and awful hiatus between 
his premises and his conclusion. Leaving out the two words com- 
pact and accession, which are not constitutional modes of expres- 
sion, and stating the matter precisely as the truth is, his first res- 
olution would have affirmed that the people of the several States 
ratified this Constilution, or form of government. ‘These are the 
very words of South Carolina herself, in her act of ratifica- 
tion. Let, then, his first resolution tell the exact truth; let it 
state the fact precisely as it exists; let it say that the people of 


456 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


the several States ratified a constitution, or form of government 
and then, Sir, what will become of his inference in his second 
resolution, which is in these words, viz. “that, as in all other 
cases of compact among sovereign parties, each has an equal 
right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode 
and measure of redress”? It is obvious, is it not, Sir? that this 
conclusion requires for its support quite other premises; it 
requires premises which speak of accession and of compact 
between sovereign powers; and, without such premises, it is 
altogether unmeaning. 

Mr. President, if the honorable member whl truly state what 
the people did in forming this Constitution, and then state what 
they must do if they would now undo what they then did, he 
will unavoidably state a case of revolution. Let us see if it be 
not so. He must state, in the first place, that the people of the 
several States adopted and ratified this Constitution, or form 
of government; and, in the next place, he must state that they 
have a right to undo this; that is to say, that they have a right 
to discard the form of government which they have adopted, 
and to break up the Constitution which they have ratified. 
Now, Sir, this is neither more nor less than saying that they 
have a right to make a revolution. ‘To reject an established 
government, to break up a political constitution, is revolu- 
tion. 

I deny that any man can state accurately what was done by 
the people, in establishing the present Constitution, and then 
state accurately what the people, or any part of them, must 
now do to get rid of its obligations, without stating an unde- 
niable case of the overthrow of government. I admit, of course, 
that the people may, if they choose, overthrow the government. 
But, then, that is revolution. The doctrine now contended for 
is, that, by nullification or secession, the obligations and au- 
thority of the government may be set aside or rejected, without 
revolution. But that is what I deny; and what I say is, that 
no man can state the case with historical accuracy, and in con- 
stitutional language, without showing that the honorable gentle- 
man’s right, as asserted in his conclusion, is a revolutionary right 
_ merely; that it does not and cannot exist under the Constitu- 
tion, or agreeably to the Constitution, but can come into exist- 
ence only when the Constitution is overthrown. This is the 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES 457 


reason, Sir, which makes it necessary to abandon the use of 
constitutional language for a new vocabulary, and to substitute, 
in the place of plain historical facts, a series of assumptions. 
This is the reason why it is necessary to give new names to 
things, to speak of the Constitution, not as a constitution, but 
as a compact, and of the ratifications by the people, not as 
ratifications, but as acts of accession. 

Sir, I intend to hold the gentleman to the written record. In 
the discussion of a constitutional question, I intend to impose 
upon him the restraints of constitutional language. ‘The people 
have ordained a Constitution; can they reject it without revo- 
lution? They have established a form of government; can 
they overthrow it without revolution? ‘These are the true ques- 
tions. 

Allow me now, Mr. President, to inquire further into the ex- 
tent of the propositions contained in the resolutions, and their 
necessary consequences. ) 

Where sovereign communities are parties, there is no essential 
difference between a compact, a confederation, and a league. 
They all equally rest on the plighted faith of the sovereign 
party. A league, or confederacy, is but a subsisting or continu-- 
ing treaty. 

The gentleman’s resolutions, then, affirm, in effect, that these 
twenty-four United States are held together only by a subsist- 
ing treaty, resting for its fulfilment and continuance on no inhe- 
rent power of its own, but on the plighted faith of each State; 
or, in other words, that our Union is but a league; and, as a 
consequence from this proposition, they further affirm that, as 
sovereigns are subject to no superior power, the States must 
judge, each for itself, of any alleged violation of the league; 
and if such violation be supposed to have occurred, each may 
adopt any mode or measure of redress which it shall think. 
proper. 

Other consequences naturally follow, too, from the main prop- 
osition. If a league between sovereign powers have no limita- 
tion as to the time of its duration, and contain nothing making 
it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the 
parties, although no violation be complained of. If, in the opin- 
ion of either party, it be violated, such party may say that he 
will no longer fulfil its obligations on his part, but will consider 

VOL, III. 39 


458 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be 
one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual. Upon this 
principle, the Congress of the United States, in 1798, declared 
null and void the treaty of alliance between the United States 
and France, though it professed to be a perpetual alliance. 

If the violation of the league be accompanied with serious 
injuries, the suffering party, being sole judge of his own mode 
and measure of redress, has a right to indemnify himself by 
reprisals on the offending members of the league; and reprisals, 
if the circumstances of the case require it, may be followed by 
direct, avowed, and public war. 

The necessary import of the resolution, therefore, is, that the 
United States are connected only by a league; that it is in the 
good pleasure of every State to decide how long she will choose 
to remain a member of this league; that any State may deter- 
mine the extent of her own obligations under it, and accept or 
reject what shall be decided by the whole; that she may also 
determine whether her rights have been violated, what is the 
extent of the injury done her, and what mode and measure of 
redress her wrongs may make it fit and expedient for her to 
adopt. The result of the whole is, that any State may secede 
at pleasure; that any State may resist a law which she herself 
may choose to say exceeds the power of Congress; and that, as 
a sovereign power, she may redress her own grievances, by her 
own arm, at her own discretion. She may make reprisals; she 
may cruise against the property of other members of the league ; 
she may authorize captures, and make open war. 

If, Sir, this be our political condition, it is time the people of 
the United States understood it. Let us look for a moment to 
the practical consequences of these opinions.. One State, hold- 
ing an embargo law unconstitutional, may declare her opinion, 
and withdraw from the Union. She secedes. Another, form- 
ing and expressing the same judgment on a law laying duties 
on imports, may withdraw also. She secedes. And as, in her 
opinion, money has been taken out of the pockets of her citizens 
illegally, under pretence of this law, and as she has power to 
redress their wrongs, she may demand satisfaction ; and, if re- 
fused, she may take it with a strong hand. ‘The gentleman has 
himself pronounced the collection of duties, under existing laws, 
to be nothing but robbery. Robbers, of course, may be rightful- 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 459 


ly dispossessed of the fruits of their flagitious crimes; and 
therefore, reprisals, impositions on the commerce of other States, 
foreign alliances against them, or open war, are all modes of re- 
dress justly open to the discretion and choice of South Carolina; 
for she is to judge of her own rights, and to seek satisfaction for 
her own wrongs, in her own way. 

But, Sir, a ¢hird State is of opinion, not only that these laws 
of imposts are constitutional, but that it is the absolute duty of 
Congress to pass and to maintain such laws; and that, by omit- 
ting to pass and maintain them, its constitutional obligations 
would be grossly disregarded. She herself relinquished the 
power of*protection, she might allege, and allege truly, and gave 
it up to Congress, on the faith that Congress would exercise it. 
If Congress now refuse to exercise it, Congress does, as she may 
insist, break the condition of the grant, and thus manifestly vio- 
late the Constitution; and for this violation of the Constitution, 
she may threaten to secede also. Virginia may secede, and hold 
the fortresses in the Chesapeake. The Western States may 
secede, and take to their own use the public lands. Louisiana 
may secede, if she choose, form a foreign alliance, and hold the 
mouth of the Mississippi. If one State may secede, ten may do 
so, twenty may do so, twenty-three may do so. Sir, as these 
secessions go on, one after another, what is to constitute the 
United States? Whose will be the army? Whose the navy? 
Who will pay the debts? Who fulfil the public treaties? Who 
perform the constitutional guaranties? Who govern this Dis- 
trict and the Territories? Who retain the public property? 

Mr. President, every man must see that these are all questions 
which can arise only after a revolution. ‘They presuppose the 
breaking up of the government. While the Constitution lasts, 
they are repressed; they spring up to annoy and startle us only 
from its grave. 

The Constitution does not provide for events which must be 
preceded by its own destruction. Srcerssion, therefore, since it 
must bring these consequences with it, is REVOLUTIONARY, and 
NULLIFICATION is equally RevoLuTIONARY. What is revolution? 
Why, Sir, that is revolution which overturns, or controls, or suc- 
cessfully resists, the existing public authority; that which ar- 
rests the exercise of the supreme power; that which introduces 
a new paramount authority into the rule of the State. Now 


460 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


Sir, this is the precise object of nullification. It attempts to 
‘supersede the supreme legislative authority. It arrests the arm 
of the executive magistrate. It interrupts the exercise of the 
accustomed judicial power. Under the name of an ordinance, 
it declares null and void, within the State, all the revenue laws 
of the United States. Is not this revolutionary? Sir, so soon 
as this ordinance shall be carried into effect, a revolution will 
have commenced in South Carolina. She will have thrown off 
‘the authority to which her citizens have heretofore been subject. 
She will have declared her own opinions and her own will to be 
-above the laws and above the power of those who are intrusted 
with their administration. If she makes good these declarations, 
she is revolutionized. As to her, it is as distinctly a change of 
the supreme power, as the American Revolution of 1776. ‘That 
revolution did not subvert government in all its forms. It did 
not subvert local laws and municipal administrations. It only 
threw off the dominion of a power claiming to be superior, and 
to have a right, in many important respects, to exercise legisla- 
‘tive authority. Thinking this authority to have been usurped 
or abused, the American Colonies, now the United States, bade 
it defiance, and freed themselves from it by means of a revolu- 
tion. But that revolution left them with their own municipal 
laws still, and the forms of local government. If Carolina now 
shall effectually resist the laws of Congress; if she shall be her 
own judge, take her remedy into her own hands, obey the laws 
of the Union when she pleases and disobey them when she 
pleases, she will relieve herself from a paramount power as dis- 
tinctly as the American Colonies did the same thing in 1776. 
In other words, she will achieve, as to herself, a revolution. 

But, Sir, while practical nullification in South Carolina would 
‘be, as to herself, actual and distinct revolution, its necessary 
tendency must also be to spread revolution, and to break up the 
‘Constitution, as to all the other States. It strikes a deadly 
blow at the vital principle of the whole Union. ‘To allow State 
resistance to the laws of Congress to be rightful and proper, to 
admit nullification in some States, and yet not expect to see a 
dismemberment of the entire government, appears to me the 
wildest illusion, and the most extravagant folly. The gentle- 
man seems not conscious of the direction or the rapidity of his 
own course. ‘The current of his opinions sweeps him along, he 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 461 


knows not whither. To begin with nullification, with the avowed 
intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to secession, dismember- 
ment, and general revolution, is as if one were to take the 
plunge of Niagara, and ery out that he would stop half way 
down. In the one case, as in the other, the rash adventurer 
must go to the bottom of the dark abyss below, were it not 
that that abyss has no discovered bottom. 

Nullification, if successful, arrests the power of the law, ab- 
solves citizens from their duty, subverts the foundation both of 
protection and obedience, dispenses with oaths and obligations 
of allegiance, and elevates another authority to supreme com- 
mand. Is not this revolution? And it raises to supreme com- 
mand four-and-twenty distinct powers, each professing to be 
under a general government, and yet each setting its laws at 
defiance at pleasure. Is not this anarchy, as well as revolution? 
Sir, the Constitution of the United States was received as a 
whole, and for the whole country. If it cannot stand altogether, 
it cannot stand in parts; and if the laws cannot be executed 
everywhere, they cannot long be executed anywhere. ‘The gen- 
tleman very well knows that all duties and imposts must be uni- 
form throughout the country. He knows that we cannot have 
one rule or one law for South Carolina, and another for other 
States. He must see, therefore, and does see, and every man 
sees, that the only alternative is a repeal of the laws throughout 
the whole Union, or their execution in Carolina as well as 
elsewhere. And this repeal is demanded because a single 
State interposes her veto, and threatens resistance! The result 
of the gentleman’s opinion, or rather the very text of his doc- 
trine, is, that no act of Congress can bind all the States, the con- 
stitutionality of which is not admitted by all; or, in other words, 
that no single State is bound, against its own dissent, by a law 
of imposts. This is precisely the evil experienced under the 
old Confederation, and for remedy of which this Constitution 
was adopted. ‘The leading object in establishing this govern- 
ment, an object forced on the country by the condition of the 
times and the absolute necessity of the law, was to give to Con- 
gress power to lay and collect imposts without the consent of 
particular States. The Revolutionary debt remained unpaid; the 
national treasury was bankrupt; the country was destitute of 
credit; Congress issued its requisitions on the States, and the 

ou * 


462 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


States neglected them; there was no power of coercion but war; 
Congress could not lay imposts, or other taxes, by its own 
authority; the whole general government, therefore, was little 
more than a name. ‘The Articles of Confederation, as to pur- 
poses of revenue and finance, were nearly a dead letter. The 
country sought to escape from this condition, at once feeble 
and disgraceful, by constituting a government which should have 
power, of itself, to lay duties and taxes, and to pay the public 
debt, and provide for the general welfare; and to lay these du- 
ties and taxes in all the States, without asking the consent of 
_the State governments. This was the very power on which the 
new Constitution was to depend for all its ability to do good; 
and without it, it can be no government, now or at any time. 
Yet, Sir, it is precisely against this power, so absolutely indis- 
pensable to the very being of the government, that South Car- 
olina directs her ordinance. She attacks the government in its 
authority to raise revenue, the very main-spring of the whole sys- 
tem; and if she succeed, every movement of that system must 
inevitably cease. It is of no avail that she declares that she 
does not resist. the law as a revenue law, but as a law for pro- 
tecting manufactures. It is a revenue law; it is the very law 
by force of which the revenue is collected; if it be arrested in 
any State, the revenue ceases in that State; it is, in a word, 
the sole reliance of the government for the means of maintain- 
ing itself and performing its duties. 

Mr. President, the alleged right of a State to decide constitu- 
tional questions for herself necessarily leads to force, because 
other States must have the same right, and because different 
States will decide differently ; and when these questions arise 
between States, if there be no superior power, they can be de- 
cided only by the law of force. On entering into the Union, the 
people of each State gave up a part of their own power to make 
laws for themselves, in consideration that, as to common ob- 
jects, they should have a part in making laws for other States. 
In other words, the people of all the States agreed to create a 
common government, to be conducted by common counsels. 
Pennsylvania, for example, yielded the right of laying imposts in 
her own ports, in consideration that the new government, in 
which she was to have a share, should possess the power of lay- 
ing imposts on all the States. If South Carolina now refuses 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 463 


to submit to this power, she breaks the condition on which oth- 
er States entered into the Union. She partakes of the common 
counsels, and therein assists to bind others, while she refuses to 
be bound herself. It makes no difference in the case, whether 
she does all this without reason or pretext, or whether she sets 
up as a reason, that, in her judgment, the acts complained of are 
unconstitutional. In the judgment of other States, they are 
not so. It is nothing to them that she offers some reason or 
some apology for her conduct, if it be one which they do not 
admit. It is not to be expected that any State will violate her 
duty without some plausible pretext. That would be too rash 
a defiance of the opinion of mankind. But if it be a pretext 
which lies in her own breast; if it be no more than an opinion 
which she says she has formed, how can other States be satis- 
fied with this? How can they allow her to be judge of her own — 
obligations? Or, if she may judge of her obligations, may 
they not judge of their rights also? May not the twenty-three 
entertain an opinion as well as the twenty-fourth? And if it 
be their right, in their own opinion, as expressed in the common 
council, to enforce the law against her, how is she to say that 
her right and her opinion are to be every thing, and their right 
and their opinion nothing? 

Mr. President, if we are to receive the Constitution as the 
text, and then to lay down in its margin the contradictory com 
mentaries which have been, and which may be, made by differ 
ent States, the whole page would be a polyglot indeed. fh 
would speak with as many tongues as the builders of Babel, 
and in dialects as much confused, and mutually as unintelligible 
The very instance now before us presents a practical illustration. 
The law of the last session is declared unconstitutional in South 
Carolina, and obedience to it is refused. In other States, it is 
admitted to be strictly constitutional. You walk over the limit 
of its authority, therefore, when you pass a State line. On one 
side it is law, on the other side a nullity; and yet it is passed 
by a common government, having the same authority in all the 
States. 

Such, Sir, are the inevitable results of this doctrine. Begin- 
ning with the original error, that the Constitution of the United 
States is nothing but a compact between sovereign States; 
asserting, in the next step, that each State has a right to be its 


464 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


own sole judge of the extent of its own obligations, and conse- 
quently of the constitutionality of laws of Congress; and, in 
the next, that it may oppose whatever it sees fit to declare un- 
constitutional, and that it decides for itself on the mode and 
measure of redress, — the argument arrives at once at the con- 
clusion, that what a State dissents from, it may nullify; what it 
opposes, it may oppose by force; what it decides for itself, it may 
execute by its own power; and that, in short, it is itself supreme 
over the legislation of Congress, and supreme over the decisions 
of the national judicature; supreme over the constitution of the 
country, supreme over the supreme law of the land. However 
it seeks to protect itself against these plain inferences, by saying 
that an unconstitutional law is no law, and that it only opposes 
such laws as are unconstitutional, yet this does not in the 
slightest degree vary the result; since it insists on deciding this 
question for itself; and, in opposition to reason and argument, 
in opposition to practice and experience, in opposition to the 
judgment of others, having an equal right to judge, it says, 
only, “ Such is my opinion, and my opinion shall be my law, 
and I will support it by my own strong hand. I denounce the 
law; I declare it unconstitutional; that is enough; it shall not 
be executed. Men in arms are ready to resist its execution. An 
attempt to enforce it shall cover the land with blood.  Else- 
where it may be binding; but here it is trampled under foot.” 

This, Sir, is practical nullification. 

And now, Sir, against all these theories and opinions, I main- 
tain, — 

1. That the Constitution of the United States is not a league, 
confederacy, or compact between the people of the several 
States in their sovereign capacities; but a government proper, 
founded on the adoption of the people, and creating direct rela- 
tions between itself and individuals. 

2. ‘That no State authority has power to dissolve these rela- 
tions; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; and that, 
consequently, there can be no such thing as secession without 
revolution. 

3. That there is a supreme law, consisting of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and acts of Congress passed in pur- 
suance of it, and treaties; and that, in cases not capable of 
assuming the character of a suit in law or equity, Congress 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 465 


must judge of, and finally interpret, this supreme law so often 
as it has occasion to pass acts of legislation; and in cases capa- 
ble of assuming, and actually assuming, the character of a suit, 
the Supreme Court of the United States is the final interpreter. 
4. 'That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify 
an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within. her limits, 
on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconstitutional, 
is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the general govern- 
ment, and on the equal rights of other States; a plain violation 
of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary 
in its character and tendency. 
/ Whether the Constitution be a compact between States in 
their sovereign capacities, is a question which must be mainly 
argued from what is contained in the instrument itself. We all 
agree that it is an instrument which has been in some way 
clothed with power. We all admit that it speaks with author- 
ity. ‘The first question then is, What does it say of itself? 
What does it purport to be? Does it style itself a league, con- 
federacy, or compact between sovereign States? It is to be 
remembered, Sir, that the Constitution began to speak only after 
its adoption. Until it was ratified by nine States, it was but a 
proposal, the mere draught of an instrument. It was like a deed 
drawn, but not executed. ‘The Convention had framed it; sent 
it to Congress, then sitting under the Confederation ; Congress 
had transmitted it to the State legislatures; and by these last it 
was laid before conventions of the people in the several States. 
All this while it was inoperative paper. It had received no 
stamp of authority, no sanction; it spoke no language. But 
when ratified by the people in their respective conventions, then 
it had a voice, and spoke authentically. Every word in it had 
then received the sanction of the popular will, and was to be 
received as the expression of that will. What the Constitution 
says of itself, therefore, is as conclusive as what it says on any 
other point. Does it call itself a “compact”? Certainly not. 
It uses the word compact but once, and that is when it declares 
that the States shall enter into no compact. Does it call itself 
a “league,” a “confederacy,” a “subsisting treaty between the 
States”? Certainly not. ‘There is not a particle of such lan- 
guage in all its pages. But it declares itself a Constirurion. 
What is a constitution? Certainly not a league, compact, or 


466 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


confederacy, but a fundamental law. That fundamental regu- 
lation which determines the manner in which the public au- 
thority is to be executed, is what forms the constitution of a 
state. Those primary rules which concern the body itself, and 
the very being of the political society, the form of government, 
and the manner in which power is to be exercised, — all, in a 
word, which form together the constitution of a state, — these are 
the fundamental laws. ‘This, Sir, is the language of the public 
writers. But do we need to be informed, in this country, what 
a constitution is? Is it not an idea perfectly familiar, definite, 
and well settled? We are at no loss to understand what is 
meant by the constitution of one of the States; and the Con- 
stitution of the United States speaks of itself as being an 
instrument of the same nature. It says, this Constitution shall 
be the law of the land, any thing in any State constitution to 
the contrary notwithstanding. And it speaks of itself, too, in 
plain contradistinction from a confederation; for it says that all 
debts contracted, and all engagements entered into, by the United 
States, shall be as valid under this Constitution as under the Con- 
federation. It does not say, as valid under this compact, or this 
league, or this confederation, as under the former confederation, 
but as valid under this Constitution. 

This, then, Sir, is declared to be a constitution. A constitu 
tion is the fundamental law of the state; and this is expressly 
declared to be the supreme law. It is as if the people had said 
“ We prescribe this fundamental law,” or “this supreme law,’ 
for they do say that they establish this Constitution, and that it 
shall be the supreme law. They say that they ordain and es- 
tablish it. Now, Sir, what is.the common application of these 
words? We do not speak of ordaining leagues and compacts. 
If this was intended to be a compact or league, and the States 
to be parties to it, why was it not so said? Why is there found 
no one expression in the whole instrument indicating such in- 
tent? The old Confederation was expressly called a league, 
and into this league it was declared that the States, as States, 
severally entered. Why was not similar language used in the 
Constitution, if a similar intention had existed? Why was it 
not said, “the States enter into this new league,” “the States 
form this new confederation,” or “the States agree to this 
new compact”? Or why was it not said, in the language of 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. AG7 


the gentleman’s resolution, that the people of the several States 
acceded to this compact in their sovereign capacities? What 
reason is there for supposing that the framers of the Constitu- 
tion rejected expressions appropriate to their own meaning, and 
adopted others wholly at war with that meaning? 

Again, Sir, the Constitution speaks of that political system 
which is established as “the government of the United States.” 
Is it not doing strange violence to language to call a league or a 
compact between sovereign powers a government? The goy- 
ernment of a state is that organization in which the political 
power resides. It is the political being created by the constitu- 
tion or fundamental law. The broad and clear difference be- 
tween a government and a league or compact is, that a govern- 
ment is a body politic; it has a will of its own; and it possesses 
powers and faculties to execute its own purposes. Every com- 
pact looks to some power to enforce its stipulations. Even ina 
compact between sovereign communities, there always exists 
this ultimate reference to a power to insure its execution; al- 
though, in such case, this power is but the force of one party 
against the force of another; that is to say, the power of war. 
But a government executes its decisions by its own supreme au- . 
thority. Its use of force in compelling obedience to its own en- 
actments is not war. It contemplates no opposing party having 
a right of resistance. It rests on its own power to enforce its 
own will; and when it ceases to possess this power, it is no 
longer a government. 

Mr. President, I concur so generally in the very able speech 
of the gentleman from Virginia near me,” that it is not without 
difidence and regret that I venture to differ with him on any 
point. His opinions, Sir, are redolent of the doctrines of a very 
distinguished school, for which I have the highest regard, of 
whose doctrines I can say, what I can also say of the gentle- 
man’s speech, that, while I concur in the results, | must be per- 
mitted to hesitate about some of the premises. I do not agree 
that the Constitution is a compact between States in their sov- 
ereign capacities. I do not agree, that, in strictness of language, 
it is a compact at all. But I do agree that it is founded on 
consent or agreement, or on compact, if the gentleman prefers 


* Mr. Rives. 


468 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


that word, and means no more by it than voluntary consent or 
agreement. The Constitution, Sir, is not a contract, but the 
result of a contract; meaning by contract no more than assent. 
Founded on consent, it is a. government proper. Adopted by 
the agreement of the people of the United States, when adopted, 
it has become a Constitution. The people have agreed to make 
a Constitution; but when made, that Constitution becomes 
what its name imports. It is no longer a mere agreement. 
Our laws, Sir, have their foundation in the agreement or con- 
sent of the two houses of Congress. We say,-habitually, that 
one house proposes a bill, and the other agrees to it; but the 
result of this agreement is not a compact, but a law. ‘The law, 
the statute, is not the agreement, but something created by the 
agreement; and something which, when created, has a new 
character, and acts by its own authority. So the Constitution 
of the United States, founded in or on the consent of the people, 
may be said to rest on compact or consent; but it is not itself 
the compact, but its result. When the people agree to erect a 
government, and actually erect it, the thing is done, and the 
agreement is at an end. The compact is executed, and the end 
designed by it attained. Henceforth, the fruit of the agreement 
exists, but the agreement itself is merged in its own accomplish- 
ment; since there can be no longer a subsisting agreement or 
compact to form a constitution or government, after that con- 
stitution or government has been actually formed and estab- 
lished. 

It appears to me, Mr. President, that the plainest account of 
the establishment of this government presents the most just and 
philosophical view of its foundation. ‘The people of the several 
States had their separate State governments; and between the 
States there also existed a Confederation. With this condition 
of things the people were not satisfied, as the Confederation had 
been found not to fulfil its intended objects. It was proposed, 
therefore, to erect a new, common government, which should 
possess certain definite powers, such as regarded the prosperity 
of the people of all the States, and to be formed upon the 
general model of American constitutions. This proposal was 
assented to, and an instrument was presented to the people of 
the several States for their consideration. ‘They approved it, 
and agreed to adopt it, as a Constitution. They executed that 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 469 


agreement; they adopted the Constitution as a Constitution, 
and henceforth it must stand as a Constitution until it shall be 
altogether destroyed. Now, Sir, is not this the truth of the whole 
matter? And is not all that we have heard of compact be- 
tween sovereign States the mere effect of a theoretical and arti- 
ficial mode of reasoning upon the subject? a mode of reason- 
ing which disregards plain facts for the sake of hypothesis ? 

Mr. President, the nature of sovereignty or sovereign power 
has been extensively discussed by gentlemen on this occasion, 
as it generally is when the origin of our government is debated, 
But I confess myself not entirely satisfied with arguments and 
illustrations drawn from that topic. ‘The sovereignty of govern- 
ment is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No 
such thing is known in North America. Our governments are 
all limited. In Europe, sovereignty is of feudal origin, and im- 
ports no more than the state of the sovereign. It comprises his 
rights, duties, exemptions, prerogatives, and powers. But with 
us, all power is with the people. They alone are sovereign ; 
and they erect what governments they please, and confer on 
them such powers as they please. None of these governments 
is sovereign, in the European sense of the word, all being re- 
strained by written constitutions. It seems to me, therefore, 
that we only perplex ourselves when we attempt to explain the 
relations existing between the general government and the sey- 
eral State governments, according to those ideas of sovereignty 
which prevail under systems essentially different from our own. 

But, Sir, to return to the Constitution itself; let me inquire 
what it relies upon for its own continuance and support. I hear 
it often suggested, that the States, by refusing to appoint Sena- 
tors and Electors, might bring this government to an end.  Per- 
haps that is true; but the same may be said of the State gov- 
ernments themselves. Suppose the legislature of a State, hav- 
ing the power to appoint the governor and the judges, should 
omit that duty, would not the State government remain unor- 
ganized? No doubt, all elective governments may be broken 
up by a general abandonment, on the part of those intrusted 
with political powers, of their appropriate duties. But one pop- 
ular government has, in this respect, as much security as an- 
other. The maintenance of this Constitution does not depend 
on the plighted faith of the States, as States, to support it; and 

VOL. III 40 


470 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


this again shows that it is not a league. It relies on indivi lual 
duty fe obligation. 

The Constitution of the United States Sree direct relations 
between this government and individuals. ‘This government 
may punish individuals for treason, and all other crimes in the 
code, when committed against the United States. It has power, 
also, to tax individuals, in any mode, and to any extent; and it 
possesses the further power of demanding from individuals mili- 
tary service. Nothing, certainly, can more clearly distinguish a 
government from a confederation of states than the possession 
of these powers. No closer relations can exist between individ- 
uals and any government. 

On the other hand, the government owes high and solemn 
duties to every citizen of the country. It is bound to protect 
him in his most important rights and interests. It makes war 
for his protection, and no other government in the country can 
make war. It makes peace for his protection, and no other 
government can make peace. It maintains armies and navies 
for his defence and security, and no other government is al- 
lowed to maintain them. He goes abroad beneath its flag, and 
carries over all the earth a national character imparted to him 
by this government, and which no other government can im- 
part. In whatever relates to war, to peace, to commerce, he 
knows no other government. All these, Sir, are connections as 
dear and as sacred as can bind individuals to any government 
on earth. It is not, therefore, a compact between States, but a 
government proper, operating directly upon individuals, yielding 
to them protection on the one hand, and demanding from them 
obedience on the other. 

There is no language in the whole Constitution applicable to 
a confederation of States. If the States be parties, as States, 
what are their rights, and what their respective covenants and 
stipulations? And where are their rights, covenants, and stip- 
ulations expressed? The States engage for nothing, they prom- 
ise nothing. In the Articles of Confederation, they did make 
promises, and did enter into engagements, and did plight the 
faith of each State for their fulfilment; but in the Constitution 
.there is nothing of that kind. The reason is, that, in the Con- 
stitution, it is the people who speak, and not the States. The 
people ordain the Constitution, and therein address themselves 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. A471 


to the States, and to the legislatures of the States, in the lan- 
guage of injunction and prohibition. The Constitution utters its 
behests in the name and by authority of the people, and it does 
not exact from States any plighted public faith to maintain it. 
On the contrary, it makes its own preservation depend on indi- 
vidual duty and individual obligation. Sir, the States cannot 
omit to appoint Senators and Electors. It is not a matter rest- 
ing in State discretion or State pleasure. The Constitution has 
taken better care of its own preservation. It lays its hand on 
individual conscience and individual duty. It incapacitates any 
man to sit in the legislature of a State, who shall not first have 
taken his solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United 
States. From the obligation of this oath, no State power can 
discharge him. All the members of all the State legislatures are 
as religiously bound to support the Constitution of the United 
States as they are to support their own State constitution. 
Nay, Sir, they are as solemnly sworn to support it as we our- 
selves are, who are members of Congress. 

No member of a State legislature can refuse to proceed, at 
the proper time, to elect Senators to Congress, or to provide for 
the choice of Electors of President and Vice-President, any more 
than the members of this Senate can refuse, when the appointed 
day arrives, to meet the members of the other house, to count 
the votes for those officers, and ascertain who are chosen. In 
both cases, the duty binds, and with equal strength, the con- 
science of the individual member, and it is imposed on all by an 
oath in the same words. Let it then, never be said, Sir, that it 
is a matter of discretion with the States whether they will con- 
tinue the government, or break it up by refusing to appoint Sen- 
ators and to elect Electors. They have no discretion in the 
matter. The members of their legislatures cannot avoid doing 
either, so often as the time arrives, without a direct violation of 
their duty and their oaths; such a violation as would break up 
any other government. 

Looking still further to the provisions of the Constitution 
itself, in Sich to learn its true character, we find its great ap- 
parent purpose to be, to unite the people of all the States under 
one general government, for certain definite objects, and, to the 
extent of this union, to restrain the separate authority of the 
States. Congress only can declare war; therefore, when one 

; 


472 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


State is at war with a foreign nation, all must be at war. The 
President and the Senate only can make peace; when peace is 
made for one State, therefore, it must be made for all. 

Can any thing be conceived more preposterous, than that any 
State should have power to nullify the proceedings of the gen- 
eral government respecting peace and war? When war is de- 
clared by a law of Congress, can a single State nullify that law, 
and remain at peace? And yet she may nullify that law as 
well as any other. If the President and Senate make peace, 
may one State, nevertheless, continue the war? And yet, if 
she can nullify a law, she may quite as well nullify a treaty. 

The truth is, Mr. President, and no ingenuity of argument, no 
subtilty of distinction can evade it, that, as to certain purposes, 
the people of the United States are one people. They are one 
in making war, and one in making peace; they are one in regu- 
lating commerce, and one in laying duties of imposts. The 
very end and purpose of the Constitution was, to make them 
one people in these particulars; and it has effectually accom- 
plished its object. All this is apparent on the face of the Con- 
stitution itself. J have already said, Sir, that to obtain a power 
of direct legislation over the people, especially in regard to im- 
posts, was always prominent as a reason for getting rid of the 
Confederation, and forming a new Constitution. Among innu- 
merable proofs of this, before the assembling of the Convention, 
allow me to refer only to the report of the committee of the old 
Congress, July, 1785. 

But, Sir, let us go to the actual formation of the Constitution ; 

let us open the journal of the Convention itself, and we shall 
see that the very first resolution which the Convention adopted, 
was, “ THAT A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED, 
CONSISTING OF A SUPREME LEGISLATURE, JUDICIARY, AND EXECU- 
TIVE.” ; 
This itself completely negatives all idea of league, and com- 
pact, and confederation. ‘Terms could not be chosen more fit 
to express an intention to establish a national government, and 
to banish for ever all notion of a compact between sovereign 
States. 

This resolution was adopted on the 30th of May, 1787. Af- 
terwards, the style was altered, and, instead of being called 
a national government, it was called the government of th 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 473 


United States; but the substance of this resolution was xe- 
tained, and was at the head of that list of resolutions which 
was afterwards sent to the committee who were to frame the 
instrument. | 

It is true, there were gentlemen in the Convention, who were 
for retaining the Confederation, and amending its Articles; but 
the majority was against this, and was for a national government. 
Mr. Patterson’s propositions, which were for continuing the Ar- 
ticles of Confederation with additional powers, were submitted 
to the Convention on the 15th of June, and referred to the com- 
mittee of the whole. The resolutions forming the basis of a 
national government, which had once been agreed to in the 
committee of the whole, and reported, were recommitted to the 
same committee, on the same day. ‘The Convention, then, in 
committee of the whole, on the 19th of June, had both these 
plans before them; that is to say, the plan of a confederacy, or 
compact, between States, and the plan of a national govern- 
ment. Both these plans were considered and debated, and the 
committee reported, “ ‘That they do not agree to the propositions 
offered by the honorable Mr. Patterson, but that they again sub- 
mit the resolutions formerly reported.” If, Sir, any historical 
fact in the world be plain and undeniable, it is that the Con- 
vention deliberated on the expediency of continuing the Con- 
federation, with some amendments, and rejected that scheme, 
and adopted the plan of a national government; with a legis- 
lature, an executive, and a judiciary of its own. ‘They were 
asked to preserve thé league; they rejected the proposition. 
They were asked to continue the existing compact between 
States; they rejected it. They rejected compact, league, and 
confederation, and set themselves about framing the constitution 
of a national government; and they accomplished what they 
undertook. 

If men will open their eyes fairly to the lights of history, it is 
impossible to be deceived on this point. The great object was 
to supersede the Confederation, by a regular government; be- 
cause, under the Confederation, Congress had power only to 
make requisitions on States; and if States declined compliance, 
as they did, there was no remedy but war against such delin- 
quent States. It would seem, from Mr. Jeflerson’s correspond- 
ence, in 1786 and 1787, that he was of opinion that even this 

40 * 


474, THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


remedy ought to be tried. “There will be no money in the 
treasury,” said he, “till the confederacy shows its teeth”; and 
he suggests that a single frigate would soon levy, on the com- 
merce of a delinquent State, the deficiency of its contribution. 
But this would be war; and it was evident that a confederacy 
could not long hold together, which should be at war with its 
members. ‘I'he Constitution was adopted to avoid this neces- 
sity. It was adopted that there might be a government which 
should act directly on individuals, without borrowing aid from 
the State governments. This is clear as light itself on the very 
face of the provisions of the Constitution, and its whole history 
tends to the same conclusion. Its framers gave this very reason 
for their work in the most distinct terms. Allow me to quote 
but one or two proofs, out of hundreds. That State, so small in 
territory, but so distinguished for learning and talent, Connecti- 
cut, had sent to the general Convention, among other members, 
Samuel Johnston and Oliver Ellsworth. The Constitution hav- 
ing been framed, it was submitted to a convention of the people 
of Connecticut for ratification on the part of that State; and 
Mr. Johnston and Mr. Ellsworth were also members of this con- 
vention. On the first day of the debates, being called on to ex- 
plain the reasons which led the Convention at Philadelphia to 
recommend such a Constitution, after showing the insufhciency 
of the existing confederacy, inasmuch as it applied to States, as 
States, Mr. Johnston proceeded to say, — 


**’The Convention saw this imperfection in attempting to legislate for 
States in their political capacity, that the coercion of law can be exer- 
cised by nothing but a military force. ‘They have, therefore, gone upon 
entircly new ground. They have formed one new nation out of the 
individual States. The Constitution vests in the general legislature a 
power to make laws in matters of national concern; to appoint judges 
to decide upon these Jaws; and to appoint officers to carry them into 
execution. This excludes the idea of an armed force. ‘The power 
which is to enforce these laws is to be a legal power, vested in proper 
magistrates. ‘The force which is to be employed is the energy of law ; 
and this force is to operate only upon individuals who fail in their duty 
to their country. This is the peculiar glory of the Constitution, that it 
depends upon the mild and equal energy of the magistracy for the exe- 
‘cution of the laws.” 


In the further course of the debate, Mr. Ellsworth said, — 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 475 


**In republics, it is a fundamental principle, that the majority govern, 
and that the minority comply with the general voice. How contrary, 
then, to republican principles, how humiliating, is our present situation ! 
A single State can rise up, and put a veto upon the most important 
public measures. We have seen this actually take place; a single 
State has controlled the general voice of the Union; a minority, a very 
small minority, has governed us. So far is this from being consistent 
with republican principles, that it is, in effect, the worst species of mon- 
archy. 

‘“‘ Hence we see how necessary for the Union is a coercive principle. 
No man pretends the contrary. We all see and feel this necessity. 
The only question is, Shall it be a coercion of law, or a coercion of 
arms? ‘There is no other possible alternative. Where will those who 
oppose a coercion of law come out? Where will they end? A neces- 
sary consequence of their principles is a war of the States one against 
another. [am for coercion by law; that coercion which acts only upon 
delinquent individuals. This Constitution does not attempt to coerce 
sovereign bodies, States, in their political capacity. No coercion is 
applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. If we should 
attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force 
against a delinquent State, it would involve the good and bad, the inno- 
cent and guilty, in the same calamity. But this legal coercion singles 
out the guilty individual, and punishes him for breaking the laws of the 
Union.” 


Indeed, Sir, if we look to all contemporary history, to the num- 
bers of the Federalist, to the debates in the conventions, to the 
publications of friends and foes, they all agree, that a change had 
been made from a confederacy of States to a different system ; 
they all agree, that the Convention had formed a Constitution 
for a national government. With this result some were satis- 
fied, and some were dissatisfied; but all admitted that the thing 
had been done. In none of these various productions and pub- 
lications did any one intimate that the new Constitution was 
but another compact between States in their sovereign capaci- 
ties. I do not find such an opinion advanced in a single in- 
stance. Everywhere, the people were told that the old Confed- 
eration was to be abandoned, and a new system to be tried; 
that a proper government was proposed, to be founded in the 
name of the people, and to have a regular organization of its 
own. Everywhere, the people were told that it was to be a gov- 
ernment with direct powers to make laws over individuals, and 


476 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


to lay taxes and imposts without the consent of the States. 
Everywhere, it was understood to be a popular Constitution. It 
came to the people for their adoption, and was to rest on the 
same deep foundation as the State constitutions themselves. Its 
most distinguished advocates, who had been themselves mem- 
bers of the Convention, declared that the very object of submit- 
ting the Constitution to the people was, to preclude the possi- 
bility of its being regarded as a mere compact. “ However gross 
a heresy,” say the writers of the Federalist, “it may be to main- 
tain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, 
the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibil- 
ity of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying 
the foundations of our national government deeper than in the 
mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American 
empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE 
PEOPLE.” 

Such is the language, Sir, addressed to the people, while they 
yet had the Constitution under consideration. ‘The powers con- 
ferred on the new government were perfectly well understood to 
be conferred, not by any State, or the people of any State, but 
by the people of the United States. Virginia is more explicit, 
perhaps, in this particular, than any other State. Her conven- 
tion, assembled to ratify the Constitution, “in the name and 
behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that 
the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from 
the people of the United States, may be resumed by them when- 
ever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” 

{s this language which describes the formation of a compact 
between States? or language describing the grant of powers to 
a new government, by the whole people of the United States? 

Among all the other ratifications, there is not one which speaks 
of the Constitution as a compact between States. Those of 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire express the transaction, in 
my opinion, with sufficient accuracy. They recognize the Di- 
vine goodness “in affording THE PEOPLE oF THE UNITED STATES 
an opportunity of entering into an explicit and solemn compact 
with each other, by assenting to and ratifying a new Constitu- 
tion.” You will observe, Sir, that it is the proPLE, and not the 
States, who have entered into this compact; and it is the PHo- 
PLE of all the United States. These conventions, by this form 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 477 


of expression; meant merely to say, that the people of the United 
States had, by the blessing of Providence, enjoyed the oppor- 
tunity of establishing a new Constitution, founded in the consent 
of the people. ‘This consent of the people has been called, by 
Kuropean writers, the social compact ; and, in conformity to this 
common mode of expression, these conventions speak of that 
assent, on which the new Constitution was to rest, as an ex- 
plicit and solemn compact, not which the States had entered 
into with each other, but which the people of the United States 
had entered into. 

Finally, Sir, how can any man get over the words of the 
Constitution itself? —“ We, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED SrarEs, 
DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS ConstiTuTION.” ‘These words 
must cease to be a part of the Constitution, they must be oblit- 
erated from the parchment on which they are written, before 
any human ingenuity or human argument can remove the pop- 
ular basis on which that Constitution rests, and turn the instru- 
ment into a mere compact between sovereign States. 


The second proposition, Sir, which I propose to maintain, is, 
that no State authority can dissolve the relations subsisting be- 
tween the government of the United States and individuals; 
that nothing can dissolve these relations but revolution; and 
that, therefore, there can be no such thing as secession without 
revolution. All this follows, as it seems to me, as a just conse- 
quence, if it be first proved that the Constitution of the United 
States is a government proper, owing protection to individuals, 
and entitled to their obedience. 

The people, Sir, in every State, live under two governments. 
They owe obedience to both. These governments, though dis- 
tinct, are not adverse. Each has its separate sphere, and its 
peculiar powers and duties. Itis not a contest between two 
sovereigns for the same power, like the wars of the rival houses 
in England; nor is it a dispute between a government de facto 
and a government de jure. It is the case of a division of pow- 
ers between two governments, made by the people, to whom 
both are responsible. Neither can dispense with the duty which 
individuals owe to the other; neither can call itself master of 
the other: the people are masters of both. This division of 
power, it is true, is in a great measure unknown in Kurope. It 


478 THE CONSTITUTION Nor A COMPACT 


is the peculiar system of America; and, though new and singu- 
lar, it is not incomprehensible. The State constitutions are es- 
tablished by the people of the States. This Constitution is 
established by the people of all the States. How, then, can a 
State secede? How cana State undo what the whole people 
have done? How can she absolve her citizens from their obe- 
dience to the laws of the United States? How can she annul 
their obligations and oaths? How can the members of her legis- 
lature renounce their own oaths? Sir, secession, as a revolu- 
tionary right, is intelligible; as a right to be proclaimed in the 
midst of aril commotions, and asserted at the head of armies, I 
can understand it. But as a practical right, existing under the 
Constitution, and in conformity with its provisions, it seems to 
me to be nothing but a plain absurdity; for it supposes resist- 
ance to government, under the authority of government itself; it 
supposes dismemberment, without violating the principles of 
union; it supposes opposition to law, without crime; it sup- 
poses the violation of oaths, without responsibility; it supposes 
the total overthrow of government, without revolution. 

The Constitution, Sir, regards itself as perpetual and immor- 
tal. It seeks to establish a union among the people of the 
States, which shall last through all time. * Or, if the common 
fate of things human must be expected at some period to hap- 
pen to it, yet that catastrophe is not anticipated. 

The instrument contains ample provisions for its amendment, 
at all times; none for its abandonment, at any time. It de- 
clares that new States may come into the Union, but it does 
not declare that old States may go out. ‘The Union is nota 
temporary partnership of States. It is the association of the 
people, under a constitution of government, uniting their power, 
joining together their highest interests, cementing their present 
enjoyments, and blending, in one indivisible mass, all their hopes 
for the future. Whatsoever is steadfast in just political princi- 
ples; whatsoever is permanent in the structure of human socie- 
ty; whatsoever there is which can derive an enduring character 
from being founded on deep-laid principles of constitutional lib- 
erty and on the broad foundations of the public wi 
unite to entitle this instrument to be regarded as a "permanent 
constitution of government. 

In the next place, Mr. President, I contend that there is a su- 








BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES A79 


preme law of the land, consisting of the Constitution, acts of 
Congress passed in pursuance of it, and the public treaties. 
This will not be denied, because such are the very words of the 
Constitution. But I contend, further, that it rightfully belongs 
to Congress, and to the courts of the United States, to settle the 
construction of this supreme law, in doubtful cases. This is 
denied; and here arises the great practical question, Who is to 
construe finally the Constitution of the United States? We all 
agree that the Constitution is the supreme law; but who shall 
interpret that law? In our system of the division of powers be- 
tween different governments, controversies will necessarily some- 
times arise, respecting the extent of the powers of each. Who 
shall decide these controversies? Does it rest with the general 
government, in all or any of its departments, to exercise the 
office of final interpreter? Or may each of the States, as well 
as the general government, claim this right of ultimate decision? 
The practical result of this whole debate turns on this point. 
The gentleman contends that each State may judge for itself 
of any alleged violation of the Constitution, and may finally 
decide for itself, and may execute its own decisions by its own 
power. All the recent proceedings in South Carolina are found- 
ed on this claim of right. Her convention has pronounced the 
revenue laws of the United States unconstitutional; and this 
decision she does not allow any authority of the United States 
to overrule or reverse. Of course she rejects the authority of 
Congress, because the very object of the ordinance is to reverse 
the decision of Congress; and she rejects, too, the authority of 
the courts of the United States, because she expressly prohibits 
all appeal to those courts. It is in order to sustain this asserted 
right of being her own judge, that she pronounces the Constitu- 
tion of the United States to be but a compact, to which she is a 
party, and a sovereign party. If this be established, then the in- 
ference is supposed to follow, that, being sovereign, there is no 
power to control her decision; and her own judgment on her 
own compact is, and must be, conclusive. 

I have already endeavored, Sir, to point out the practical con- 
sequences of this doctrine, and to show how utterly inconsistent 
it is with all ideas of regular government, and how soon its 
adoption would involve the whole country in revolution and ab- 
solute anarchy. I hope it is easy now to show, Sir, that a doc: 


480 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


trine bringing such consequences with it is not well founded 
that it has nothing to stand on but theory and assumption; and 
that it is refuted by plain and express constitutional provisions. 
I think the government of the United States does possess, in its 
appropriate departments, the authority of final decision on ques- 
tions of disputed power. I think it possesses this authority, 
both by necessary implication and by express grant. 

It will not be denied, Sir, that this authority naturally belongs 
to all governments. ‘They all exercise it from necessity, and as 
a consequence of the exercise of other powers. The State gov- 
ernments themselves possess it, except in that class of questions 
which may arise between them and the general government, and 
in regard to which they have surrendered it, as well by the na- 
ture of the case as by clear constitutional provisions. In other 
and ordinary cases, whether a particular law be in conformity 
to the constitution of the State is a question which the State 
legislature or the State judiciary must determine. We all 
know that these questions arise daily in the State governments, 
and are decided by those governments; and I know no govern- 
ment which does not exercise a similar power. 

Upon general principles, then, the government of the United 
States possesses this authority; and this would hardly be de- 
nied were it not that there are other governments. But since 
there are State governments, and since these, like other govern- 
ments, ordinarily construe their own powers, if the government 
of the United States construes its own powers also, which con- 
struction is to prevail in the case of opposite constructions ? 
And again, as in the case now actually before us, the State goy- 
ernments may undertake, not only to construe their own powers, 
but to decide directly on the extent of the powers of Congress. 
Congress has passed a law as being within its just powers; 
South Carolina denies that this law is within its just powers, 
and insists that-she has the right so to decide this point, and 
_ that her decision is final. How are these questions to be settled ? 

In my opinion, Sir, even if the Constitution of the United 
States had made no express provision for such cases, it would 
yet be difficult to maintain, that, in a Constitution existing over 
four-and-twenty States, with equal authority over all, one could 
claim a right of construing it for the whole. This would seem 
a manifest impropriety; indeed, an absurdity. If the Constitu- 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 481 


tion is a government existing over all the States, though with 
limited powers, it necessarily follows that, to the extent of those 
powers, it must be supreme. If it be not superior to the author- 
ity of a particular State, it is not a national government. But 
_ as it is a government, as it has a legislative power of its own, 
and a judicial power coextensive with the legislative, the infer- 
ence is irresistible that this government, thus created by the 
whole and for the whole, must have an authority superior te 
that of the particular government of any one part. Congress is 
the legislature of all the people of the United States; the judi- 
ciary of the general government is the judiciary of all the people 
of the United States. ‘To hold, therefore, that this legislature 
and this judiciary are subordinate in authority to the legislature 
and judiciary of a single State, is doing violence to all common 
sense, and overturning all established principles. Congress must 
judge of the extent of its own powers so often as it is called on 
to exercise them, or it cannot act at all; and it must also act 
independent of State control, or it cannot act at all. 

. The right of State interposition strikes at the very foundation 
of the legislative power of Congress. It possesses no effective 
legislative power, if such right of State interposition exists; be- 
cause it can pass no law not subject to abrogation. It cannot 
make laws for the Union, if any part of the Union may pro- 
nounce its enactments void and of no effect. Its forms of legis- 
lation would be an idle ceremony, if, after all, any one of four- 
and-twenty States might bid defiance to its authority. Without 
express provision in the Constitution, therefore, Sir, this whole 
question is necessarily decided by those provisions which create 
a legislative power and a judicial power. If these exist in a 
government intended for the whole, the inevitable consequence 
is, that the laws of this legislative power and the decisions of 
this judicial power must be binding on and over the whole. No 
man can form the conception of a government existing over 
four-and-twenty States, with a regular legislative and judicial 
power, and of the existence at the same time of an authority, 
residing elsewhere, to resist, at pleasure or discretion, the enact- 
ments and the decisions of such a government. I maintain, 
therefore, Sir, that, from the nature of the case, and as an infer- 
ence wholly unavoidable, the acts of Congress and the decisions 
of the national courts must be of higher authority than State 


VOL. III. Al 


482 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


laws and State decisions. If this be not so, there is, there can 
be, no general government. 

But, Mr. President, the Constitution has not left this cardinal 
point without full and explicit provisions. First, as to the au- 
thority of Congress. Having enumerated the specific powers 
conferred on Congress, the Constitution adds, as a distinet 
and substantive clause, the following, viz.: “'To make all laws 
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execu- 
tion the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this 
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any 
department or officer thereof.” If this means any thing, it 
means that Congress may judge of the true extent and just in- 
terpretation of the specific powers granted to it, and may judge 
also of what is necessary and proper for executing those powers. 
If Congress is to judge of what is necessary for the execution of 
its powers, it must, of necessity, judge of the extent and inter- 
pretation of those powers. 

And in regard, Sir, to the judiciary, the Constitution is still 
more express and emphatic. It declares that the judicial power 
shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under the Con- 
stitution, laws of the United States, and treaties; that there shall 
be one Supreme Court, and that this Supreme Court shall have 
appellate jurisdiction of all these cases, subject to such excep- 
tions as Congress may make. It is impossible to escape from 
the generality of these words. If a case arises under the Con- 
stitution, that is, if a case arises depending on the construction 
of the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States 
extends to it. It reaches the case, the question; it attaches the 
power of the national judicature to the case itself, in whatever 
court it may arise or exist; and in this case the Supreme Court 
has appellate jurisdiction over all courts whatever. No lan- 
guage could provide with more effect and precision than is here 
done, for subjecting constitutional questions to the ultimate 
decision of the Supreme Court. And, Sir, this is exactly what 
the Convention found it necessary to provide for, and intended 
to provide for. It is, too, exactly what the people were univer- 
sally told was done when they adopted the Constitution. One 
of the first resolutions adopted by the Convention was in these 
words, viz.: “ That the jurisdiction of the national judiciary shall 
extend to cases which respect the collection of the national reve- 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 485 


nue, and questions which involve the national peace and har- 
mony.” Now, Sir, this either had no sensible meaning at all, or 
else it meant that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary should 
extend to these questions, with a paramount authority. It is not 
_ to be supposed that the Convention intended that the power 
of the national judiciary should extend to these questions, and 
that the power of the judicatures of the States should also extend 
to them, with equal power of final decision. 'This would be to 
defeat the whole object of the provision. There were thirteen 
_judicatures already in existence. The evil complained of, or the 
danger to be guarded against, was contradiction and repugnance 
in the decisions of these judicatures. If the framers of the Con- 
stitution meant to create a fourteenth, and yet not to give it 
power to revise and control the decisions of the existing thirteen, 
then they only intended to augment the existing evil and the 
apprehended danger by increasing still further the chances of 
discordant judgments. Why, Sir, has it become a settled 
axiom in politics that every government must have a judicial 
power coextensive with its legislative power? Certainly, there 
is only this reason, namely, that the laws may receive a uniform 
interpretation and a uniform execution. ‘This object cannot be 
otherwise attained. A statute is what it is judicially interpret- 
ed to be; and if it be construed one way in New Hampshire, 
and another way in Georgia, there is no uniform law. One su- 
preme court, with appellate and final jurisdiction, is the natural 
and only adequate means, in any government, to secure this uni- 
formity. ‘The Convention saw all this clearly; and the resolu- 
tion which I have quoted, never afterwards rescinded, passed 
through various modifications, till it finally received the form 
which the article now bears in the Constitution. 

It is undeniably true, then, that the framers of the Constitu- 
tion intended to create a national judicial power, which should 
be paramount on national subjects. And after the Constitution 
was framed, and while the whole country was engaged in dis- 
cussing its merits, one of its most distinguished advocates, Mr 
Madison, told the people that it was true, that, in controversies 
velating to the boundary belween the two jurisdictions, the tribu- 
nal which is ultimately to decide is to be established under the gen- 
eral government. Mr. Martin, who had been a member of the 
Convention, asserted the same thing to the legislature of Mary- 


484 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


land, and urged it as a reason for rejecting the Constitution. 
Mr. Pinckney, himself also a leading member of the Convention, 
declared it to the people of South Carolina. Everywhere it was 
admitted, by friends and foes, that this power was in the Con- 
stitution. By some it was thought dangerous, by most it was 
thought necessary ; but by all it was agreed to be a power actu- 
ally contained in the instrument. ‘The Convention saw the ab- 
solute necessity of some control in the national government 
over State laws. Different modes of establishing this control 
were suggested and considered. At one time, it was proposed 
that the laws of the States should, from time to time, be laid 
before Congress, and that Congress should possess a negative 
over them. But this was thought inexpedient and inadmissible ; 
and in its place, and expressly as a substitute for it, the existing 
provision was introduced; that is to say, a provision by which 
the federal courts should have authority to overrule such State 
laws as might be in manifest contravention of the Constitution. 
The writers of the Federalist, in explaining the Constitution, 
while it was yet pending before the people, and still unadopted, 
give this account of the matter in terms, and assign this reason 
for the article as it now stands. By this provision Congress 
escaped the necessity of any revision of State laws, left the 
whole sphere of State legislation quite untouched, and yet ob- 
tained a security against any infringement of the constitutional 
power of the general government. Indeed, Sir, allow me to ask 
again, if the national judiciary was not to exercise a power of 
revision on constitutional questions over the judicatures of the 
States, why was any national judicature erected at all? Can 
any man give a sensible reason for having a judicial power in 
this government, unless it be for the sake of maintaining a uni- 
formity of decision on questions arising under the Constitution 
and laws of Congress, and insuring its execution? And does 
not this very idea of uniformity necessarily imply that the con- 
struction given by the national courts is to be the prevailing 
construction? How else, Sir, is it possible that uniformity can 
be preserved ? 

Gentlemen appear to me, Sir, to look at but one side of the 
question. ‘They regard only the supposed danger of trusting a 
government. with the interpretation of its own powers. But 
will they view the question in its other aspect? Will they show 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 485 


us how it is possible for a government to get along with four- 
and-tweuty interpreters of its laws and powers? Gentlemen 
argue, too, as if, in these cases, the State would be always 
right, and the general government always wrong. But sup- 
pose the reverse; suppose the State wrong (and, since they dif- 
fer, some of them must be wrong); are the most important and 
essential operations of the government to be embarrassed and 
arrested, because one State holds the contrary opinion? Mr. 
President, every argument which refers the constitutionality of 
acts of Congress to State decision appeals from the majority to 
the minority; it appeals from the common interest to a partic- 
ular interest; from the counsels of all to the counsel of one; 
and endeavors to supersede the judgment of the whole by the 
judgment of a part. 

I think it is clear, Sir, that the Constitution, by express pro- 
vision, by definite and unequivocal words, as well as by neces- 
sary implication, has constituted the Supreme Court of the 
United States the appellate tribunal in all cases of a constitu- 
tional nature which assume the shape of a suit, in law or equity. 
And I think I cannot do better than to leave this part of the 
subject by reading the remarks made upon it in the convention 
of Connecticut, by Mr. Ellsworth; a gentleman, Sir, who has 
left behind him, on the records of the government of his country, 
proofs of the clearest intelligence and of the deepest sagacity, as 
well as of the utmost purity and integrity of character. “ This 
Constitution,” says he, “defines the extent of the powers of the 
general government. If the general legislature should, at any 
time, overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitu- 
tional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if 
they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, 
it is void; and the judiciary power, the national judges, who, to 
secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will de- 
clare it to be void. On the other hand, if the States go beyond 
their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon 
the general government, the law is void; and upright, inde- 
pendent judges will declare it to be so.” Nor did this remain 
merely matter of private opinion. In the very first session 
of the first Congress, with all these well-known objects, both 
of the Convention and the people, full and fresh in his mind, 
Mr. Ellsworth, as is generally understood, reported the bill for 

41 * 


486 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


the organization of the judicial department, and in that bill 
made provision’ for the exercise of this appellate power of the 
Supreme Court, in all the proper cases, in whatsoever court 
arising; and this appellate power has now been exercised 
for more than forty years, without interruption, and without 
doubt. 

As to the cases, Sir, which do not come before the courts, 
those political questions which terminate with the enactments 
of Congress, it is of necessity that these should be ultimately 
decided by Congress itself. Like other legislatures, it must be 
trusted with this power. ‘The members of Congress are chosen 
by the people, and they are answerable to the people; like other 
public agents, they are bound by oath to support the Constitu- 
tion. ‘These are the securities that they will not violate their 
duty, nor transcend their powers. They are the same securities 
that prevail in other popular governments; nor is it easy to see 
how grants of power can be more safely guarded, without ren- 
dering them nugatory. If the case cannot come before the 
courts, and if Congress be not trusted with its decision, who 
shall decide it? The gentleman says, each State is to decide it 
for herself. If so, then, as I have already urged, what is law in 
one State is not law in another. Or, if the resistance of one 
State compels an entire repeal of the law, then a minority, and 
that a small one, governs the whole country. 

Sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification reject, 
as it seems to me, the first great principle of all republican lib- 
erty; that is, that the majority must govern. In matters of 
common concern, the judgment of a majority must stand as 
the judgment of the whole. This is a law imposed on us by 
the absolute necessity of the case; and if we do not act upon it, 
there is no possibility of maintaining any government but des- 
potism. We hear loud and repeated denunciations against 
what is called majority government. It is declared, with much 
warmth, that a majority government cannot be maintained in 
the United States. What, then, do gentlemen wish? Do they 
wish to establish a minority government? Do they wish to 
subject the will of the many to the will of the few? The hon- 
orable gentleman from South Carolina has spoken of absolute 
majorities and majorities concurrent ; language wholly unknown 
to our Constitution, and to which it is not easy to affix definite 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 487 


ideas. As far as I understand it, it would teach us that the 
absolute majority may be found in Congress, but the majority 
concurrent must be looked for in the States; that is to say, Sir, 
stripping the matter of this novelty of phrase, that the dissent 
of one or more States, as States, renders void the decision of 
a majority of Congress, so far as that State is concerned. And 
so this doctrine, running but a short career, like other dogmas 
of the day, terminates in nullification. 

If this vehement invective against majorities meant no more 
than that, in the construction of government, it is wise to pro- 
vide checks and balances, so that there should be various limi- 
tations on the power of the mere majority, it would only mean 
what the Constitution of the United States has already abun- 
dantly provided. It is full of such checks and balances. In its 
very organization, it adopts a broad and most effective principle 
in restraint of the power of mere majorities. A majority of 
the people elects the House of Representatives, but it does not 
elect the Senate. The Senate is elected by the States, each 
State having, in this respect, an equal power. No law, there- 
fore, can pass, without the assent of the representatives of the 
people, and a majority of the representatives of the States also. 
A majority of the representatives of the people must concur, 
and a majority of the States must concur, in every act of Con- 
eres; and the President is elected on a plan compounded of both 
these principles. But having composed one house of repre- 
sentatives chosen by the people in each State, according to their 
numbers, and the other of an equal number of members from 
every State, whether larger or smaller, the Constitution gives to 
majorities in these houses thus constituted the full and entire 
power of passing laws, subject always to the constitutional re- 
strictions and to the approval of the President. To subject 
them to any other power is clear usurpation. ‘The majority of 
one house may be controlled by the majority of the other; and 
both may be restrained by the President’s negative. These 
are checks and balances provided by the Constitution, existing 
in the government itself, and wisely intended to secure delibera- 
tion and caution in legislative proceedings. But to resist the 
will of the majority in both houses, thus constitutionally exer- 
cised ; to insist on the lawfulness of interposition by an extra- 
neous power; to claim the right of defeating the will of Congress, 


488 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


by setting up against it the will of a single State, —is neither 
more nor less, as it strikes me, than a plain attempt to over- 
throw the government. The constituted authorities of the 
United States are no longer a government, if they be not mas- 
ters of their own will; they are no longer a government, if an 
external power may arrest their proceedings; they are no longer 
a government, if acts passed by both houses, and approved 
by the President, may be nullified by State vetoes or State 
ordinances. Does any one suppose it could make any differ- 
ence, as to the binding authority of an act of Congress, and 
of the duty of a State to respect it, whether it passed by a 
mere majority of both houses, or by three fourths of each, 
or the unanimous vote of each? Within the limits and re- 
strictions of the Constitution, the government of the United 
States, like all other popular governments, acts by majorities. 
It can act no otherwise. Whoever, therefore, denounces the 
government of majorities, denounces the government of his own 
country, and denounces all free governments. And whoever 
would restrain these majorities, while acting within their consti- 
tutional limits, by an external power, whatever he may intend, 
asserts principles which, if adopted, can lead to nothing else than 
the destruction of the government itself. 

Does not the gentleman perceive, Sir, how his argument 
against majorities might here be retorted upon him? Does he 
not see how cogently he might be asked, whether it be the char- 
acter of nullification to practise what it preaches? Look to 
South Carolina, at the present moment. How far are the rights 
of minorities there respected? I confess, Sir, I have not known, 
in peaceable times, the power of the majority carried with a 
higher hand, or upheld with more relentless disregard of the 
rights, feelings, and principles of the minority ; — a minority em- 
bracing, as the gentleman himself will admit, a large portion of 
the worth and respectability of the State; a minority compre- 
hending in its numbers men who have been associated with 
him, and with us, in these halls of legislation; men who have 
served their country at home and honored it abroad; men who 
would cheerfully lay down their lives for their native State, in 
any cause which they could regard as the cause of honor and 
duty; men above fear, and above reproach; whose deepest grief 
and distress spring from the conviction, that the present proceed: 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 489 


ings of the State must ultimately reflect discredit upon her. 
How is this minority, how are these men, regarded? They are 
enthralled and disfranchised by ordinances and acts of legisla- 
tion ; subjected to tests and oaths, incompatible, as they consci- 
entiously think, with oaths already taken, and obligations already 
assumed; they are proscribed and denounced, as recreants to 
duty and patriotism, and slaves to a foreign power. Both the 
spirit which pursues them, and the positive measures which 
emanate from that spirit, are harsh and proscriptive beyond 
all precedent within my knowledge, except in periods of pro- 
fessed revolution. 

It is not, Sir, one would think, for those who approve these 
proceedings to complain of the power of majorities. 

Mr. President, all popular governments rest on two principles, 
or two assumptions : — 

First, That there is so far a common interest among those 
over whom the government extends, as that it may provide for 
the defence, protection, and good government of the whole, 
without injustice or oppression to parts; and 

Secondly, That the representatives of the people, and espe- 
cially the people themselves, are secure against general corrup- 
tion, and may be trusted, therefore, with the exercise of power. 

Whoever argues against these principles argues against the 
practicability of all free governments. And whoever admits 
these, must admit, or cannot deny, that power is as safe in the 
hands of Congress as in those of other representative bodies. 
Congress is not irresponsible. Its members are agents of the 
people, elected by them, answerable to them, and liable to be 
displaced or superseded, at their pleasure; and they possess as 
fair a claim to the confidence of the people, while they continue 
to deserve it, as any other public political agents. 

If, then, Sir, the manifest intention of the Convention, and 
the contemporary admission of both friends and foes, prove any 
thing; if the plain text of the instrument itself, as well as the 
necessary implication from other provisions, prove any thing; 
if the early legislation of Congress, the course of judicial de- 
cisions, acquiesced in by all the States. for forty years, prove 
any thing, — then it is proved that there is a supreme law, and 
a final interpreter. 

My fourth and last proposition, Mr. President, was, that any 


490 THE CONSTITUTION NOT a COMPACT 


attempt by a State to abrogate or nullify acts of Congress is 
a usurpation on the powers of the general government and on 
the equal rights of other States, a violation of the Constitution, 
and a proceeding essentially revolutionary. This is undoubt- 
edly true, if the preceding propositions be regarded as proved. 
If the government of the United States be trusted with the duty, 
in any department, of declaring the extent of its own powers, 
then a State ordinance, or act of legislation, authorizing resist- 
ance to an act of Congress, on the alleged ground of its uncon- 
stitutionality, is manifestly a usurpation upon its powers. If 
the States have equal rights in matters concerning the whole, 
then for one State to set up her judgment against the judgment 
of the rest, and to insist on executing that judgment by force, 
is also a manifest usurpation on the rights of other States. If 
the Constitution of the United States be a government proper, 
with authority to pass laws, and to give them a uniform inter- 
pretation and execution, then the interposition of a State, to 
enforce her own construction, and to resist, as to herself, that 
law which binds the other States, is a violation of the Consti- 
tution. 

If that be revolutionary which arrests the legislative, execu- 
tive, and judicial power of government, dispenses with existing 
oaths and obligations of obedience, and elevates another power 
to supreme dominion, then nullification is revolutionary. Or if 
that be revolutionary the natural tendency and practical effect 
of which are to break the Union into fragments, to sever all con- 
nection among the people of the respective States, and to pros- 
trate this general government in the dust, then nullification is 
revolutionary. 

Nullification, Sir, is as distinctly revolutionary as secession ; 
but I cannot say that the revolution which it seeks is one of 
so respectable a character. Secession would, it is true, abandon 
the Constitution altogether; but then it would profess to aban- 
don it. Whatever other inconsistencies it might run into, one, 
at least, it would avoid. It would not belong to a government, 
while it rejected its authority. It would not repel the burden, 
and continue to enjoy the benefits. It would not aid in passing 
laws which others are to obey, and yet reject their authority as 
to itself. It would not undertake to reconcile obedience to pub- 
ic authority with an asserted right of command over that same 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 491 


authority. It would not be in the government, and above the 
government, at the same time. But though secession may be a 
more respectable mode of attaining the object than nullification, 
it is not more truly revolutionary. Each, and both, resist the 
constitutional authorities; each, and both, would sever the 
Union, and subvert the government. 

Mr. President, having detained the Senate so long already, I 
will not now examine at length the ordinance and laws of 
South Carolina. ‘These papers are well drawn for their pur- 
pose. ‘heir authors understood their own objects. ‘They are 
called a peaceable remedy, and we have been told that South 
Carolina, after all, intends nothing but a lawsuit. A very few 
words, Sir, will show the nature of this peaceable remedy, and 
of the lawsuit which South Carolina contemplates. 

In the first place, the ordinance declares the law of last July, 
and all other laws of the United States laying duties, to be ab- 
solutely null and void, and makes it unlawful for the constituted 
authorities of the United States to enforce the payment of such 
duties. It is therefore, Sir, an indictable offence, at this mo- 
ment, in South Carolina, for any person to be concerned in col- 
lecting revenue under the laws of the United States. It being 
declared, by what is considered a fundamental law of the State, 
unlawful to collect these duties, an indictment lies, of course, 
against any one concerned in such collection; and he is, on 
general principles, liable to be punished by fine and imprison- 
ment. ‘The terms, it is true, are, that it is unlawful “to enforce 
the payment of duties”; but every custom-house officer enforces 
payment while he detains the goods in order to obtain such 
payment. ‘The ordinance, therefore, reaches every body con- 
cerned in the collection of the duties. 

This is the first step in the prosecution of the peaceable rem- 
edy. ‘The second is more decisive. By the act commonly 
ealled the replevin law, any person, whose goods are seized or 
detained by the collector for the payment of duties, may sue 
out a writ of replevin, and, by virtue of that writ, the goods are 
to be restored to him. A writ of replevin is a writ which the 
sheriff is bound to execute, and for the execution of which he 
is bound to employ force, if necessary. He may call out the 
vosse, and must do so, if resistance be made. ‘This posse may 
be armed or unarmed. It may come forth with military array, 


A492 ° THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


and under the lead of military men. Whatever number of 
troops may be assembled in Charleston, they may be sum- 
moned, with the governor, or commander-in-chief, at their head, 
to come in aid of the sheriff. It is evident, then, Sir, that the 
whole military power of the State is to be employed, if neces- 
sary, in dispossessing the custom-house officers, and in seizing 
and holding the goods, without paying the duties. This is the 
second step in the peaceable remedy. 

Sir, whatever pretences may be set up to the contrary, this 
is the direct application of force, and of military force. It is 
unlawful, in itself, to replevy goods in the custody of the col- 
lectors. But this unlawful act is to be done, and it is to be 
done by power. Here is a plain interposition, by physical force, 
to resist the laws of the Union. ‘The legal mode of collecting 
duties is to detain the goods till such duties are paid or secured. 
But force comes, and overpowers the collector and his assist- 
ants, and takes away the goods, leaving the duties unpaid. 
There cannot be a clearer case of forcible resistance to law. 
And it is provided that the goods thus seized shall be held 
against any attempt to retake them, by the same force which 
seized them. 

Having thus dispossessed the officers of the government of the 
goods, without payment of duties, and seized and secured them 
‘by the strong arm of the State, only one thing more remains 
to be done, and that is, to cut off all possibility of legal redress; 
and that, too, is accomplished, or thought to be accomplished. 
The ordinance declares, that all judicial proceedings, founded on 
the revenue laws (including, of course, proceedings in the courts 
of the United States), shall be null and void. ‘This nullifies the 
judicial power of the United States. Then comes the test-oath 
act. This requires all State judges and jurors in the State 
courts to swear that they will execute the ordinance, and all 
acts of the legislature passed in pursuance thereof. ‘The ordi- 
nance declares, that no appeal shall be allowed from the decision 
of the State courts to the Supreme Court of the United States ; 
and the replevin act makes it an indictable offence for any 
clerk to furnish a copy of the record, for the purpose of such 
appeal. | . 

The two principal provisions on which South Carolina relies, 
to resist the laws of the United States, and nullify the author- 
ity of this government, are, therefore, these : — 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 493 


1. A forcible seizure of goods, before duties are paid or se- 
eured, by the power of the State, civil and military. 

2. The taking away, by the most effectual means in her 
power, of all legal redress in the courts of the United States; 
the confining of judicial proceedings to her own State tribunals; 
and the compelling of her judges and jurors of these her own 
courts to take an oath, beforehand, that they will decide all 
cases according to the ordinance, and the acts passed under it; 
that is, that they will decide the cause one way. They do not 
swear to fry it, on its own merits; they only swear to decide 
it as nullification requires. 

The character, Sir, of these provisions defies comment. 
Their object is as plain as their means are extraordinary. They 
propose direct resistance, by the whole power of the State, to 
laws of Congress, and cut off, by methods deemed adequate, 
any redress by legal and judicial authority. They arrest legis- 
lation, defy the executive, and banish the judicial power of this 
government. ‘They authorize and command acts to be done, 
and done by force, both of numbers and of arms, which, if 
done, and done by force, are clearly acts of rebellion and trea- 
son. 

Such, Sir, are the laws of South Carolina; such, Sir, is the 
peaceable remedy of nullification. Has not nullification reached, 
Sir, even thus early, that point of direct and forcible resist- 
ance to law to which I intimated, three years ago, it plainly 
tended ? 

And now, Mr. President, what is the reason for passing laws 
like these? What are the oppressions experienced under the 
Union, calling for measures which thus threaten to sever and 
destroy it? What invasions of public liberty, what ruin to pri- 
vate happiness, what long list of rights violated, or wrongs un- 
redressed, is to justify to the country, to posterity, and to the 
world, this assault upon the free Constitution of the United 
States, this great and glorious work of our fathers? At this 
very moment, Sir, the whole land smiles in peace, and rejoices 
in plenty. A general and a high prosperity pervades the coun- 
try; and, judging by the common standard, by increase of pop- 
ulation and wealth, or judging by the opinions of that portion 
of her people not embarked in these dangerous and desperate: 
measures, this prosperity overspreads South Carolina herself. 

VOL. Ul. 42 


494 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


Thus happy at home, our country, at the same time, holds 
high the character of her institutions, her power, her rapid growth, 
and her future destiny, in the eyes of all foreign states. One 
danger only creates hesitation; one doubt only exists, to darken 
the otherwise unclouded brightness of that aspect which she ex- 
hibits to the view and to the admiration of the world. Need I 
say, that that doubt respects the permanency of our Union? 
and need I say, that that doubt is now caused, more than 
any thing else, by these very proceedings of South Carolina? 
Sir, all Europe is, at this moment, beholding us, and looking for 
the issue of this controversy; those who hate free institutions, 
with malignant hope; those who love them, with deep anxiety 
and shivering fear. 

The cause, then, Sir, the cause! Let the world know the 
cause which has thus induced one State of the Union to bid de- 
fiance to the power of the whole, and openly to talk of secession. 
Sir, the world will scarcely believe that this whole controver- 
sy, and all the desperate measures which its support requires, 
have no other foundation than a difference of opinion wpon 2 
provision of the Constitution, between a majority of the people 
of South Carolina, on one side, and a vast majority of the whole 
people of the United States, on the other. It will not credit the 
fact, it will not admit the possibility, that, in an enlightened age, 
in a free, popular republic, under a constitution where the people 
govern, as they must always govern under such systems, by ma- 
jorities, at a time of unprecedented prosperity, without practical 
oppression, without evils such as may not only be pretended, 
but felt and experienced,—evils not slight or temporary, but 
deep, permanent, and intolerable, —a single State should rush 
into conflict with all the rest, attempt to put down the power 
of the Union by her own laws, and to support those laws by her 
military power, and thus break up and destroy the world’s last 
hope. And well the world may be incredulous. We, who see 
and hear it, can ourselves hardly yet believe it. Even after all 
that had preceded it, this ordinance struck the country with 
amazement. It was incredible and inconceivable that South 
Carolina should plunge headlong into resistance to the laws on 
a matter of opinion, and on a question in which the preponder- 
ance of opinion, both of the present day and of all past time, 
was so overwhelmingly against her. ‘The ordinance declares 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 495 


that Congress has exceeded its just power by laying duties on 
imports, intended for the protection of manufactures. This is 
the opinion of South Carolina; and on the strength of that opin- 
ion she nullifies the laws. Yet has the rest of the country ne 
right to its opinion also? Is one State to sit sole arbitress? 
She maintains that those laws are plain, deliberate, and palpa- 
ble violations of the Constitution; that she has a sovereign right 
to decide this matter; and that, having so decided, she is author- 
ized to resist their execution by her own sovereign power; and 
she declares that she will resist it, though such resistance should 
shatter the Union into atoms. 

Mr. President, I do not intend to discuss the propriety of these 
laws at large; but I will ask, How are they shown to be thus 
plainly and palpably unconstitutional? Have they no counte- 
nance at all in the Constitution itself? Are they quite new in 
the history of the government? Are they a sudden and violent 
usurpation on the rights of the States? Sir, what will the civil- 
ized world say, what will posterity say, when they learn that 
similar laws have existed from the very foundation of the gov- 
ernment, that for thirty years the power was néver questioned, 
and that no State in the Union has more freely and unequivo- 
cally admitted it than South Carolina herself? 

To lay and collect duties and imposts is an express power 
granted by the Constitution to Congress. It is, also, an exclu- 
sive power; for the Constitution as expressly prohibits all the 
States from exercising it themselves. ‘This express and exclu- 
sive power is unlimited in the terms of the grant, but is attended 
with two specific restrictions: first, that all duties and imposts 
shall be equal in all the States; second, that no duties shall be 
laid on exports. ‘The power, then, being granted, and being at- 
tended with these two restrictions, and no more, who is to im- 
pose a third restriction on the general words of the grant? If 
the power to lay duties, as known among all other nations, and 
as known in all our history, and as it was perfectly understood 
when the Constitution was adopted, includes a right of discrim- 
inating while exercising the power, and of laying some duties 
heavier and some lighter, for the sake of encouraging our own 
domestic products, what authority is there for giving to the 
words used in the Constitution a new, narrow, and unusual 
meaning? All the limitations which the Constitution intended, 


496 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


it has expressed; and what it has left unrestricted is as much a 
part of its will as the restraints which it has imposed. 

But these laws, it is said, are unconstitutional on account of 
the motive. How, Sir, can a law be examined on any such 
ground? How is the motive to be ascertained? One house, or 
one member, may have one motive; the other house, or another 
member, another. One motive may operate to-day, and another 
to-morrow. Upon any such mode of reasoning as this, one saw 
might be unconstitutional now, and another law, in exactly the 
same words, perfectly constitutional next year. Besides, ar- 
ticles may not only be taxed for the purpose of protecting home 
products, but other articles may be left free, for the same pur- 
pose and with the same motive. A law, therefore, would become 
unconstitutional from what it omitted, as well as from what it 
contained. Mr. President, it is a settled principle, acknowledged 
in all legislative halls, recognized before all tribunals, sanctioned 
by the general sense and understanding of mankind, that there 
can be no inquiry into the motives of those who pass laws, for 
the purpose of determining on their validity. If the law be 
within the fair meaning of the words in the grant of the power, 
its authority must be admitted until it is repealed. This rule, 
everywhere acknowledged, everywhere admitted, is so universal 
and so completely without exception, that even an allegation 
of fraud, in the majority of a legislature, is not allowed as a 
ground to set aside a law. 

But, Sir, is it true that the motive for these laws is such as is 
stated? Ithink not. The great object of all these laws is, un- 
questionably, revenue. If there were no occasion for revenue, 
the laws would not have been passed; and it is notorious that 
almost the entire revenue of the country is derived from them. 
And as yet we have collected none too much revenue. ‘The 
treasury has not been more reduced for many years than it is at 
the present moment. All that South Carolina can say is, that, 
in passing the laws which she now undertakes to nullify, par- 
ticular imported articles were taxed, from a regard to the protec- 
tion of certain articles of domestic manufacture, higher than they 
would have been had no such regard been entertained. And she 
insists that, according to the Constitution, no such discrimination 
can be allowed; that duties should be laid for revenue, and 
revenue only; and that it is unlawful to have reference, in any 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 497 


case, to protection. In other words, she denies the power of 
DISCRIMINATION. She does not, and cannot, complain of exces- 
sive taxation; on the contrary, she professes to be willing to pay 
any amount for revenue, merely as revenue; and up to the pres- 
ent moment there is no surplus of revenue. Her grievance, then, 
that plain and palpable violation of the Constitution which she 
insists has taken place, is simply the exercise of the power of 
DISCRIMINATION. Now, Sir, is the exercise of this power of dis- 
crimination plainly and palpably unconstitutional ? 

I have already said, the power to lay duties is given by the 
Constitution in broad and general terms. There is also con- 
ferred on Congress the whole power of regulating commerce, in 
another distinct provision. Is it clear and palpable, Sir, can any 
man say it is a case beyond doubt, that, under these two pow- 
ers, Congress may not justly discriminate, in laying duties, for 
the purpose of countervailing the policy of foreign nations, or of fa- 
voring our own home productions? Sir, what ought to conclude 
this question for ever, as it would seem to me, is, that the regu- 
lation of commerce and the imposition of duties are, in all com- 
mercial nations, powers avowedly and constantly exercised for 
this very end. ‘That undeniable truth ought to settle the ques- 
tion; because the Constitution ought to be considered, when it 
uses well-known language, as using it in its well-known sense. 
But it is equally undeniable, that it has been, from the very first, 
fully believed that this power of discrimination was conferred on 
Congress; and the Constitution was itself recommended, urged 
upon the people, and enthusiastically insisted on in some of the 
States, for that very reason. Not that, at that time, the coun- 
try was extensively engaged in manufactures, especially of the 
kinds now existing. But the trades and crafts of the seaport 
towns, the business of the artisans and manual laborers, — those 
employments, the work in which supplies so great a portion of 
the daily wants of all classes,—all these looked to the new 
Constitution as a source of relief from the severe distress which 
followed the war. It would, Sir, be unpardonable, at so late an 
hour, to go into details on this point; but the truth is as I have 
stated. The papers of the day, the resolutions of public meet- 
ings, the debates in the conventions, all that we open our eyes 
upon in the history of the times, prove it. 

Sir, the honorable gentleman from South Carolina has ree 

42* 


498 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


ferred to two incidents connected with the proceedings of the 
Convention at Philadelphia, which he thinks are evidence to 
show that the power of protecting manufactures by laying du- 
ties, and by commercial regulations, was not intended to be 
given to Congress. The first is, as he says, that a power to 
protect manufactures was expressly proposed, but not granted. 
I think, Sir, the gentleman is quite mistaken in relation to this 
part of the proceedings of the Convention. The whole history of 
the occurrence to which he alludes is simply this. ‘Towards the 
conclusion of the Convention, after the provisions of the Consti- 
tution had been mainly agreed upon, after the power to lay du- 
ties and the power to regulate commerce had both been granted, 
a long list of propositions was made and referred to the commit- 
tee, containing various miscellaneous powers, some or all of which 
it was thought might be properly vested in Congress. Among 
these was a power to establish a university; to grant charters of 
incorporation ; to regulate stage-coaches on the post-roads; and 
also the power to which the gentleman refers, and which is 
expressed in these words: “To establish public institutions, 
rewards, and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, com- 
merce, trades, and manufactures.” ‘The committee made no re- 
port on this or various other propositions in the same list. But 
the only inference from this omission is, that neither the commit- 
tee nor the Convention thought it proper to authorize Congress 
“to establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities,” for the 
promotion of manufactures, and other interests. The Convention 
supposed it had done enough, — at any rate, it had done all it 
intended, — when it had given to Congress, in general terms, the 
power to lay imposts and the power to regulate trade. It is not 
to be argued, from its omission to give more, that it meant to 
take back what it had already given. It had given the impost 
power; it had given the regulation of trade; and it did not 
deem it necessary to give the further and distinct power of es- 
tablishing public institutions. 

The other fact, Sir, on which the gentleman relies, is the dec- 
laration of Mr. Martin to the legislature of Maryland. ‘The 
gentleman supposes Mr. Martin to have urged against the Con- 
stitution, that it did not contain the power of protection. But 
if the gentleman will look again at what Mr. Martin said, he 
will find, I think, that what Mr. Martin complained cf was, that 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 499 


the Constitution, by its prohibitions on the States, had taken 
away from the States themselves the power of protecting their 
own manufactures by duties on imports. This is undoubtedly 
true; but I find no expression of Mr. Martin intimating that the 
Constitution had not conferred on Congress the same power 
which it had thus taken from the States. 

But, Sir, let us go to the first Congress; let us look in upon 
this and the other house, at the first session of their organiza- 
tion. 

We see, in both houses, men distinguished among the fram- 
ers, friends, and advocates of the Constitution. We see in 
both, those who had drawn, discussed, and matured the instru- 
ment in the Convention, explained and defended it before the 
people, and were now elected members of Congress, to put the 
new government into motion, and to carry the powers of the 
Constitution into beneficial execution. At the head of the gov- 
ernment was WasuincTton himself, who had been President of 
the Convention; and in his cabinet were others most thoroughly 
acquainted with the history of the Constitution, and distin- 
guished for the part taken in its discussion. If these persons 
were not acquainted with the meaning of the Constitution, if 
they did not understand the work of their own hands, who can 
understand it, or who shall now interpret it to us? 

Sir, the volume which records the proceedings and debates of 
the first session of the House of Representatives lies before me. 
I open it, and I find that, having provided for the administration 
of the necessary oaths, the very first measure proposed for con 
sideration is, the laying of imposts; and in the very first com 
mittee of the whole into which the House of Representativer 
ever resolved itself, on this its earliest subject, and in this its 
very first debate, the duty of-so laying the imposts as to encour- 
age manufactures was advanced and enlarged upon by almost 
every speaker, and doubted or denied by none. ‘The first gen- 
tleman who suggests this as the clear duty of Congress, and as 
an object necessary to be attended to, is Mr. Fitzsimons, of 
Pennsylvania; the second, Mr. White, of Vircinia; the third, 
Mr. Tucker, of Sourn Caro.ina. 

But the great leader, Sir, on this occasion, was Mr. Madison. ° 
Was he likely to know the intentions of the Convention and the 
people? Was he likely to understand the Constitution? At 


500 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


the second sitting of the committee, Mr. Madison explained his 
own opinions of the duty of Congress, fully and explicitly. I 
must not detain you, Sir, with more than a few short extracts 
from these opinions, but they are such as are clear, intelligible, 
and decisive. “The States,” says he, “that are most advanced 
in population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their 
particular interest attended to, in some degree. While these 
States retained the power of making regulations of trade, they 
had the power to cherish such institutions. By adopting the 
present Constitution, they have thrown the exercise of this power 
into other hands; they must have done this with an expectation 
that those interests would not be neglected here.” In another 
report of the same speech, Mr. Madison is represented as using 
still stronger language; as saying that, the Constitution having 
taken this power away from the States and conferred it on Con- 
gress, it would be a fraud on the States and on the people were 
Congress to refuse to exercise it. 

Mr. Madison argues, Sir, on this early and interesting occa- 
sion, very justly and liberally, in favor of the general principles 
of unrestricted commerce. But he argues, also, with equal force 
and clearness, for certain important exceptions to these general 
principles. The first, Sir, respects those manufactures which had 
been brought forward under encouragement by the State govern- 
ments. “It would be cruel,” says Mr. Madison, “to neglect 
them, and to divert their industry into other channels; for it is 
not possible for the hand of man to shift from one employment 
to another without being injured by the change.” Again: 
“ There may be some manufactures which, being once formed, 
can advance towards perfection without any adventitious aid; 
while others, for want of the fostering hand of government, will 
be unable to go on at all. Legislative provision, therefore, will 
be necessary to collect the proper objects for this purpose; and 
this will form another exception to my general principle.” And 
again: “'The next exception that occurs is one on which great ~ 
stress is laid by some well-informed men, and this with great 
plausibility ; that each nation should have, within itself, the 
means of defence, independent of foreign supplies; that, in 
whatever relates to the operations of war, no State ought to de- 
pend upon a precarious supply from any part of the world. 
There may be some truth in this remark; and therefore it is 
proper for legislative attention.” 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 501 


In the same debate, Sir, Mr. Burk, from Souru Caroutna, 
supported a duty on hemp, for the express purpose of encourag- 
ing its growth on the strong lands of South Carolina. “ Cot- 
ton,” he said, “was also in contemplation among them, and, if 
good seed could be procured, he hoped might succeed.”  After- 
wards, Sir, the cotton was obtained, its culture was protected, 
and it did succeed. Mr. Smith, a very distinguished member 
from the same Srare, observed: “It has been said, and justly, 
that the States which adopted this Constitution expected its ad- 
ministration would be conducted with a favorable hand. ‘The 
manufacturing States wished the encouragement of manufac- 
tures, the maritime States the encouragement of ship-building, 
and the agricultural States the encouragement of agriculture.” 

Sir, I will detain the Senate by reading no more extracts from 
these debates. I have already shown a majority of the members 
of Sourn Caro.iNna, in this very first session, acknowledging 
this power of protection, voting for its exercise, and proposing 
its extension to their own products. Similar propositions came 
from Virginia; and, indeed, Sir, in the whole debate, at what- 
ever page you open the volume, you find the power admit- 
ted, and you find it applied to the protection of particular ar- 
ticles, or not applied, according to the discretion of Congress. 
No man denied the power, no man doubted it; the only ques- 
tions were, in regard to the several articles proposed to be taxed, 
whether they were fit subjects for protection, and what the 
amount of that protection ought to be. Will gentlemen, Sir, 
now answer the argument drawn from these proceedings of the 
first Congress? Will they undertake to deny that that Con- 
gress did act on the avowed principle of protection? Or, if they 
admit it, will they tell us how those who framed the Constitu- 
tion fell, thus early, into this great mistake about its meaning? 
Will they tell us how it should happen that they had so soon 
forgotten their own sentiments and their own purposes? I con- 
fess I have seen no answer to this argument, nor any respect- 
able attempt to answer it. And, Sir, how did this debate ter- 
minate? What law was passed? There it stands, Sir, among 
the statutes, the second law in the book. It has a preamble, 
and that preamble expressly recites, that the duties which it im- 
poses are laid “for the support of government, for the discharge 
of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and pro- 


002 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


tection of manufactures.” Until, Sir, this early legislation, thus 
coeval with the Constitution itself, thus full and explicit, can be 
explained away, no man can doubt of the meaning of that in- 
strument, in this respect. . 

Mr. President, this power of discrimination, thus admitted, 
avowed, and practised upon in the first revenue act, has neyer 
been denied or doubted until within a few years past. It was 
not at all doubted in 1816, when it became necessary to adjust 
the revenue to a state of peace. On the contrary, the power 
was then exercised, not without opposition as to its expediency, 
but, as far as I remember or have understood, without the 
slightest opposition founded on any supposed want of consti- 
tutional authority. Certainly, Sourm Caronina did not doubt 
it. The tariff of 1816 was introduced, carried through, and es- 
tablished, under the lead of South Carolina. Even the minimum 
policy is of South Carolina origin. The honorable gentleman 
himself supported, and ably supported, the tariff of 1816. He 
has informed us, Sir, that his speech on. that occasion was sud- 
den and off-hand, he being called up by the request of a friend. 
Iam sure the gentleman so remembers it, and that it was so; 
but there is, nevertheless, much method, arrangement, and clear 
exposition in that extempore speech. It is very able, very, very 
much to the point, and very decisive. And in another speech, 
delivered two months earlier, on the proposition to repeal the 
internal taxes, the honorable gentleman had touched the same 
subject, and had declared “ that a certain encouragement ought to 
be extended at least to our woollen. and cotton manufactures.” I 
do not quote these speeches, Sir, for the purpose of showing 
that the honorable gentleman has changed his opinion: my ob- 
ject is other and higher. I do it for the sake of saying that 
that cannot be so plainly and palpably unconstitutional as to 
warrant resistance to law, nullification, and revolution, which the 
honorable gentleman and his friends have heretofore agreed to 
and acted upon without doubt and without hesitation. Sir, it 
is no answer to say that the tariff of 1816 was a revenue bill. 
So are they all revenue bills. The point is, and the truth is, that 
the tariff of 1816, like the rest, did discriminate; it did. distin- 
guish one article from another; it did lay duties for protec- 
tion. Look to the case of coarse cottons under the minimum 
calculation: the duty on these was from sixty to eighty per 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 503 


cent. Something beside revenue, certainly, was intended in 
this; and, in fact, the law cut up our whole commerce with 
India in that article. 

It is, Sir, only within a few years that Carolina has denied 
the constitutionality of these protective laws. The gentleman 
himself has narrated to us the true history of her proceedings on 
this point. He says, that, after the passing of the law of 1828, 
despairing then of being able to abolish the system of protec- 
tion, political men went forth among the people, and set up the 
doctrine that the system was unconstitutional. “ And the peo- 
ple,’ says the honorable gentleman, “received ‘the doctrine.” 
This, I believe, is true, Sir. The people did then receive the 
doctrine; they had never entertained it before. Down to that 
period, the constitutionality of these laws had been no more 
doubted in South Carolina than elsewhere. And I suspect it is 
true, Sir, and I deem it a great misfortune, that, to the present 
moment, a great portion of the people of the State have never 
yet seen more than one side of the argument. I believe that 
thousands of honest men are involved in scenes now passing, 
led away by one-sided views of the question, and following 
their leaders by the impulses of an unlimited confidence. De- 
pend upon it, Sir, if we can avoid the shock of arms, a day for 
reconsideration and reflection will come; truth and reason will 
act with their accustomed force, and the public opinion of South 
Carolina will be restored to its usual constitutional and patriotic 
tone. 

But, Sir, I hold South Carolina to her ancient, her cool, her 
uninfluenced, her deliberate opinions. I hold her to her own 
admissions, nay, to her own claims and pretensions, in 1789, in 
the first Congress, and to her acknowledgments and avowed sen- 
timents through a long series of succeeding years. I hold her 
to the principles on which she led Congress to act in 1816; or, 
if she have changed her own opinions, I claim some respect for 
those who still retain the same opinions. I say she is precluded 
from asserting that doctrines, which she has herself so long and 
so ably sustained, are plain, palpable, and dangerous violations 
of the Constitution. 

Mr. President, if the friends of nullification should be able to 
propagate their opinions, and give them practical effect, they 
would, in my judgment, prove themselves the most skilful “ ar- 


oU4 THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT 


chitects of ruin,’ the most effectual extinguishers of high-raised 
expectation, the greatest blasters of human hopes, that any 
age has produced. ‘They would stand up to proclaim, in tones 
which would pierce the ears of half the human race, that the 
last great experiment of representative government had failed. 
They would send forth sounds, at the hearing of which the doc- 
trine of the divine right of kings would feel, even in its grave, 
a returning sensation of vitality and resuscitation. Millions of 
eyes, of those who now feed their inherent love of liberty on 
the success of the American example, would turn away from 
beholding our dismemberment, and find no place on earth 
whereon to rest their gratified sight. Amidst the incantations 
and orgies of nullification, secession, disunion, and revolution, 
would be celebrated the funeral rites of constitutional and repub- 
lican liberty. 

But, Sir, if the government do its duty, if it act with firmness 
and with moderation, these opinions cannot prevail. Be assured, 
Sir, be assured, that, among the political sentiments of this peo- 
ple, the love of union is still uppermost. They will stand fast 
by the Constitution, and by those who defend it. I rely on no 
temporary expedients, on no political combination; but I rely 
on the true American feeling, the genuine patriotism of the peo- 
ple, and the imperative decision of the public voice. Disorder 
and confusion, indeed, may arise; scenes of commotion and 
contest are threatened, and perhaps may come. With my whole 
heart, I pray for the continuance of the domestic peace and 
quiet of the country. I desire, most ardently, the restoration of 
affection and harmony to all its parts. I desire that every citi- 
zen of the whole country may look to this government with no 
other sentiments than those of grateful respect and attachment. 
But I cannot yield even to kind feelings the cause of the Con- 
stitution, the true glory of the country, and the great trust which 
we hold in our hands for succeeding ages. If the Constitution 
cannot be inaintained without meeting these scenes of commo- 
tion and contest, however unwelcome, they must come. We 
cannot, we must not, we dare not, omit to do that which, in our 
judgment, the safety of the Union requires. Not regardless of 
consequences, we must yet meet consequences; seeing the haz- 
ards which surround the discharge of public duty, it must yet be 
discharged. For myself, Sir, I shun no responsibility justly de- 


BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES. 504 


volving on me, here or elsewhere, in attempting to maintain the 
cause. Iam bound to it by indissoluble ties of affection and 
duty, and I shall cheerfully partake in its fortunes and its fate. 
I am ready to perform my own appropriate part, whenever and 
wherever the occasion may call on me, and to take my chance 
among those upon whom blows may fall first and fall thickest. 
I shall exert every faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the 
Constitution from being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and 
even should I see it fall, I will still, with a voice feeble, perhaps, 
but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with fidelity 
and zeal which nothing shall extinguish, call on the PEOPLE 
to come to its rescue. 


VOL. III. 43 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.* 


Tue charter of the Bank of the United States provided that the pub- 
lic moneys should be deposited in the bank, subject to removal by the 
Secretary of the Treasury, on grounds to be submitted to Congress. In 
the session of 1832, Congress had passed a resolution, by a very large 
majority, that the public deposits were safe in the custody of the Bank 
of the United States. General Jackson, having applied his veto to the 
bill for renewing the charter of the bank, was determined, notwithstand- 
ing this expression of the opinion of Congress, that the public deposits 
should be transferred to an association of selected State banks. The 
Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. M’Lane), having declined to order the 
transfer, was appointed Secretary of State, in the expectation that his 
successor (Mr. Duane) would execute the President’s will in that respect. 
On the 10th of September, 1833, an elaborate paper was read by Gen- 
eral Jackson to the Cabinet, announcing his reasons for the removal of 
the deposits, and appointing the Ist of October as the day when it should 
take place. On the 2lst of September, Mr. Duane made known to the 
President his intention not to order the removal. He was dismissed 
from office, and Mr. Taney, the present Chief Justice, appointed in his 
place, by whom the requisite order for the removal of the public mon- 
eys to the State banks was immediately given. 

This measure produced a great derangement in the business of the 
country, and an almost total suspension of the accustomed action of the 
financial system. Universal distress ensued. Memorials on the subject 
were addressed to both houses of Congress from the principal cities, and 
very many of the public bodies, in the United States. These memorials 
formed the subject of prolonged and animated debate during the session 
of 1833 - 34. 

On the 20th of January, Mr. Webster presented to the Senate a series 


* Remarks, on different occasions, on the Removal of the Deposits, and en the 
subject of a National Bank, delivered in the Senate of the United States, in the 
course of the session of 1833-34 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 507 


of resolutions adopted at a public meeting in Boston, of a remarkably 
temperate and argumentative character, in which the prevailing distress 
was traced mainly to the removal of the deposits, and the restoration of 
the friendly relations between the government and the Bank of the Unit- 
ed States was mentioned as the only measure of relief likely to prove 
effectual. It was stated in one of the resolutions, that the meeting con- 
sisted of persons ‘of all classes and professions, entertaining various 
and opposite opinions upon the question of rechartering the existing na- 
tional bank or of chartering a new one, and that few of them have any 
pecuniary interest involved in the fate of that institution.” 

The resolutions having been read, Mr. Webster addressed the Senate 
as follows : — 


Mr. Prestpent,—I wish to bear unequivocal and decided tes- 
timony to the respectability, intelligence, and disinterestedness 
of the long list of gentlemen at whose instance this meeting 
was assembled. The meeting, Sir, was connected with no party 
purpose whatever. It had an object more sober, more cogent, 
more interesting to the whole community, than mere party 
questions. ‘The Senate will perceive in the tone of these res- 
olutions no intent to exaggerate or inflame; no disposition to 
get up excitement or to spread alarm. I hope the restrained 
and serious manner, the moderation of temper, and the exem- 
plary candor of these resolutions, in connection with the plain 
truths which they contain, will give them just weight with the 
Senate. I assure you, Sir, the members composing this meet- 
ing were neither capitalists, nor speculators, nor alarmists. 
They are merchants, traders, mechanics, artisans, and others en- 
gaged in the active business of life. They are of the muscular 
portion of society; and they desire to lay before Congress an 
evil which they feel to press sorely on their occupations, their 
earnings, their labor, and their property; and to express their 
conscientious conviction of the causes of that evil. If intelli- 
gence, if pure intention, if deep and wide-spread connection 
with business in its various branches, if thorough practical 
knowledge and experience, if inseparable union between their 
own prosperity and the prosperity of the whole country, au- 
thorize men to speak, and give them a right to be heard, 
the sentiments of this meeting ought to make an impression. 
For one, Sir, I entirely concur in all their opinions. I adopt 
their first fourteen resolutions, without alteration or qualifica- 


508 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS, 


tion, as setting forth truly the present state of things, stating 
truly its causes, and pointing to the true remedy. 

Mr. President, now that Iam speaking, I will use the oppor- 
tunity to say a few words which I intended to say in the course 
of the morning, on the coming up of the resolution which now 
lies on the table; but which are as applicable to this occasion 
as to that. An opportunity may perhaps hereafter be afforded 
me of discussing the reasons given by the Secretary for the very 
important measure adopted by him in removing the deposits 
But as I know not how near that time may be, I desire, in the 
mean while, to make my opinions known without reserve on the 
present state of the country. Without intending to discuss any 
thing at present, I feel it my duty, nevertheless, to let my senti- 
ments and my convictions be understood. 

In the first place, then, Sir, I agree with those who think that 
there is a severe pressure in the money market, and very serious 
embarrassment felt in all branches of the national industry. I 
think this is not local, but general; general, at least, over every 
part of the country where the cause has yet begun to operate, and 
sure to become not only general, but universal, as the operation 
of the cause shall spread. If evidence be wanted, in addition te 
all that is told us by those who know, the high rate of interest, 
now at twelve per cent. or higher where it was hardly six last 
September, the depression of all stocks, some ten, some twenty, 
some thirty per cent.,and the low prices of commodities, are 
proofs abundantly sufficient to show the existence of the pres- 
sure. But, Sir, labor, that most extensive of all interests, Amer- 
ican manual labor, feels, or will feel, the shock more sensibly, 
far more sensibly, than capital, or property of any kind. Public 
works have stopped, or must stop; great private undertakings, 
employing many hands, have ceased, and others must cease. A 
creat lowering of the rates of wages, as well as a depreciation 
of property, is the inevitable consequence of causes now in full 
operation. Serious embarrassments in all branches of business 
do certainly exist. 

I am of opinion, therefore, that there is undoubtedly a very 
severe pressure on the community, which Congress ought to re- 
lieve, if it can; and that this pressure is not an instance of the. 
ordinary reaction, or the ebbing and flowing, of commercial 
affairs, but is an extraordinary case, produced by an extraordi+ 
nary cause. 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 509 


In the next place, Sir, I agree entirely with the eleventh Bos- 
ton resolution, as to the causes of this embarrassment. We 
were in a state of high prosperity, commercial and agricultural. 
Every branch of business was pushed far, and the credit as well 
as the capital of the country employed nearly to its utmost lim- 
its. In this state of affairs, some degree of over-trading doubtless 
took place, which, however, if nothing else had occurred, would 
have been seasonably corrected by the ordinary and necessary 
operation of things. But on this palmy state of business the late 
measure of the Secretary fell, and has acted on it with powerful 
and lamentable effect. I am of opinion, that such a cause is 
entirely adequate to produce the effect, that it is wholly natural, 
and that it ought to have been foreseen that it would produce 
exactly such consequences. ‘Those must have looked at the 
surface of things only, as it seems to me, who thought other- 
wise, and who expected that such an operation could be gone 
through with without producing a very serious shock. 

The treasury in a very short time has withdrawn from the 
bank eight millions of dollars, within a fraction. This call, of 
course, the bank has been obliged to provide for, and could not 
provide for without more or less inconvenience to the public. 
The mere withdrawal of so large a sum from hands actually 
holding and using it, and the transfer of it, through the bank 
collecting, and through another bank loaning it, if it can loan it, 
into other hands, is itself an operation which, if conducted sud- 
denly, must produce considerable inconvenience. And this is 
all that the Secretary seems to have anticipated. But this is 
but the smallest part of the whole evil. The great evil arises 
from the new attitude in which the government places itself 
towards the bank. Every thing is now in a false position. 
The government, the Bank of the United States, and the State 
banks, are all out of place. They are deranged, and separated, 
and jostling against each other. Instead of amity, reliance, and 
mutual succor, relations of jealousy, of distrust, of hostility even, 
are springing up between these parties. All act on the defen- 
sive; each looks out for itself; and the public interest is crushed 
between the upper and the nether millstone. All this should 
have been foreseen. It is idle to say that these evils might have 
been prevented by the bank, if it had exerted itself to prevent 
them. ‘That is a mere matter of opinion: it may be true, or it 

45* 


O10 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


may not; but it was the business of those who proposed the re- 
moval of the deposits to ask themselves how it was probable the 
bank would act when they should attack it, assail its credit, and 
allege the violation by it of its charter; and thus compel it to 
take an attitude, at least, of stern defence. ‘The community 
have certainly a right to hold those answerable who have unne- 
cessarily got into this quarrel with the bank, and thereby occa- 
sioned the evil, let the conduct of the bank, in the course of the 
controversy, be what it may. 

In my opinion, Sir, the great source of the evil is the shock 
which the measure has given to confidence in the commercial 
world. ‘The credit of the whole system of the currency of the 
country seems shaken. ‘The State banks have lost credit and 
lost confidence. They have suffered vastly more than the Bank 
of the United States itself, at which the blow was aimed. 

The derangement of internal exchanges is one of the most 
lisastrous consequences of the measure. By the origin of its 
chartez, by its unquestioned solidity, by the fact that it was at 
home everywhere and in perfect credit everywhere, the Bank of 
the United States accomplished the internal exchanges of the 
country with vast facility, and at a rate of unprecedented cheap- 
ness. ‘The State banks can never perform this equally well; for 
the reason given in the Boston resolutions, they cannot act with 
the same concert, the same identity of purpose. Look at the 
prices current, and see the change in the value of the notes of 
distant banks in the great cities. Look at the depression of the 
stocks of the State banks, deposit banks, and all. Look at 
what must happen the moment the Bank of the United States, 
in its process of winding up, or to meet any other crisis, shall 
cease to buy domestic bills, especially in the Southern, South- 
western, and Western markets. Can any man doubt what will 
be the state of exchange when that takes place? Or can any 
one doubt its necessary effect upon the price of produce? The 
bank has purchased bills to the amount of sixty millions a year, 
as appears by documents heretofore laid before the Senate. A 
great portion of these, no doubt, were purchased in the South 
and West, against shipments of the great staples of thoso 
quarters of the country. Such is the course of trade. The 
produce of the Southwest and the South is shipped to the 
North and East for sale, and those who ship it draw bills on 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. oll 


those fo whom it is shipped; and these bills are bought and 
discounted, or cashed by the bank. When the bank shall cease 
to buy, as it must cease, consequences cannot but be felt much 
severer even than those now experienced. ‘This is inevitable. 
But, Sir, | go no farther into particular statements. My opin- 
ion, I repeat, is, that the present distress is immediately occa- 
sioned, beyond all doubt, by the removal of the deposits; and 
that just such consequences might have been, and ought to have 
been, foreseen from that measure, as we do now perceive and 
feel around us. 

Sir, I do not believe, nevertheless, that these consequences 
were foreseen. With such foresight, the deposits, I think, would 
not have been touched. ‘The measure has operated more deeply 
and more widely than was expected. We all may find proof of 
this in the conversations of every hour. No one, who seeks to 
acquaint himself with the opinions of men, in and out of Con- 
gress, can doubt, that, if the act were now proposed, it would 
receive very little encouragement or support. 

Being of opinion that the removal of the deposits has pro- 
duced the pressure as its immediate effect, not so much by with- 
drawing a large sum of money from circulation, as by alarming 
the confidence of the community, by breaking in on the well- 
adjusted relations of the government and the bank, I agree 
again with the Boston resolutions, that the natural remedy is a 
restoration of the relation in which the bank has heretofore 
stood to the government. I agree, Sir, that this question ought 
to be settled, and to be settled soon. And yet, if it be decided 
that the present state of things shall exist, if it be the determi- 
nation of Congress to do nothing in order to put an end to the 
unnatural, distrustful, half-belligerent relation between the gov- 
ernment and the bank, I do not look for any great relief to the 
community, or any early quieting of the public agitation. On 
the contrary, I expect increased difficulty and increased disquiet. 

The public moneys are now out of the Bank of the United 
States. There is no law regulating their custody or fixing 
their place. They are at the disposal of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, to be kept where he pleases, as he pleases, and the 
places of their custody to be changed as often as he pleases. 

I do not think that this is a state of things in which re coun- 
try is likely to acquiesce. 


o12 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


Mr. President, the restoration of the deposits is a question dis- 
tinct and by itself. It does not necessarily involve any other 
question. It stands clear of all controversy and all opinion 
a out rechartering the bank, or creating any new bank. I wish, 
nevertheless, Sir, to say a few words with a bearing somewhat 
beyond that question. Being of opinion that the country is not 
likely to be satisfied with the present state of things, I have 
looked earnestly for the suggestion of some prospective measure, 
some system to be adopted as the future policy of the country. 
Where are the public moneys hereafter to be kept? In what 
currency is the revenue hereafter to be collected? What is to 
take the place of the bank in our general system? How are we 
to preserve a uniform currency, a uniform measure of the value 
of property and the value of labor, a uniform medium of ex- 
change and of payments? How are we io exercise that salutary 
control over the national currency which it was the unques- 
tionable purpose of the Constitution to devolve on Congress? 
' These, Sir, appear to me to be the momentous questions before 
us, and which we cannot long keep out of view. In these ques- 
tions, every man in the community who either has a dollar, or 
expects to earn one, has a direct interest. 

Now, Sir, I have heard but four suggestions, or opinions, as to 
what may hereafter be expected or attempted. 

The first is, that things will remain as they are, that the bank 
will be suffered to expire, that no new bank will be created, and 
the whole subject be left under the control of the executive de- 
partment. 

I have already said, that I do not believe the country will 
ever acquiesce in this. 

The second suggestion is that which was made by the honor- 
able member from Virginia.* That honorable member pledges 
himself to bring forward a proposition, having for its object to do 
away with the paper system altogether, and to return to an ex- 
clusively metallic currency. Ido not think, Sir, that he will find 
much support in such an undertaking. A mere gold and silver 
currency, and the entire abolition of paper, are not suited to the 
times. The idea has something a little too antique, too Spartan, 
in it; we might as well think of going back to iron at once. 
If such a result as the gentleman hopes for were even desira- 


* Mr. Rives. 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 013 


ble, I regard its attainment as utterly impracticable and hope- 
less. I lay that scheme, therefore, out of my contemplation. 
There is, then, Sir, the rechartering of the present bank; and, 
lastly, there is the establishment of a new bank. The first of 
these received the sanction of the last Congress, but the meas- 
ure was negatived by the President. ‘The other, the creation of 
a new bank, has not been brought forward in Congress, but it 
has excited attention out of doors, and has been proposed in 
some of the State legislatures. I observe, Sir, that a proposition 
has been submitted for consideration, by a very intelligent gen- 
tleman in the legislature of Massachusetts, recommending the 
establishment of a new bank, with the following provisions :— 


** ]. The capital stock to be fifty millions of dollars. 

** 2. The stockholders of the present United States Bank to be per- 
mitted to subscribe an amount equal to the stock they now hold. 

‘*¢ 3. The United States to be stockholders to the same extent they now 
are, and to appoint the same number of directors. 

‘4, The subscription to the remaining fifteen millions to be distribut- 
ed to the several States in proportion to federal numbers, or in some 
other just and equal ratio ; the instalments payable either in cash or in 
funded stock of the State, bearing interest at five per cent. 

**5. No branch of the bank to be established in any State, unless by 
permission of its legislature. 

“6, The branches of the bank established in the several States to be 
liable to taxation by those States, respectively, in the same manner and 
to the same extent only with their own banks. 

“'7. Such States as may become subscribers to the stock to have the 
tight of appointing a certain number, not exceeding one third, of the di- 
rectors in the branch of their own State. 

“8. Stock not subscribed for under the foregoing provisions to be 
open to subscription by individual citizens.” 


A project not altogether dissimilar has been started in the 
legislature of Pennsylvania. These proceedings show, at least, 
a conviction of the necessity of some bank created by Congress. 
Mr. President, on this subject I have no doubt whatever. I 
think a national bank proper and necessary. I believe it to be 
the only practicable remedy for the evils we feel, and the only 
effectual security against the greater evils which we fear. Not, 
Sir, that there is any magic in the name of a bank; nor that a 
national bank works by any miracle or mystery. But, looking 


514 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


to the state of things actually existing around us, looking to the 
creat number of State banks already created, not less than 
three hundred and fifty or four hundred, looking to the vast 
amount of paper issued by those banks, and considering that, in 
the very nature of things, this paper must be limited and local 
in its credit and in its circulation, I confess I see nothing but 
a well-conducted national institution which is likely to afford 
any guard against excessive paper issues, or which can furnish 
a sound and uniform currency to every part of the United 
States. This, Sir, is not only a question of finance, it not only 
respects the operations of the treasury, but it rises to the char- 
acter of a high political question. It respects the currency, the 
actual money, the measure of value of all property and all labor 
in the United States. If we needed not a dollar of money in the 
treasury, it would still be our solemn and bounden duty to pro- 
tect this great interest. It respects the exercise of one of the 
greatest powers, beyond all doubt, conferred on Congress by the 
Constitution. And I hardly know any thing less consistent with 
our public duty and our high trust, nor any thing more likely to 
disturb the harmonious relations of the States, in all affairs of 
business and life, than for Congress to’ abandon all care and 
control over che currency, and to throw the whole money sys- 
tem of the country into the hands of four-and-twenty State 
legislatures. 

I am, then, Sir, for a bank; and am fully persuaded that to 
that measure the country must come at last. 

The question, then, is between the creation of a new bank, 
and the rechartering of the present bank, with modifications. 
I have already referred to the scheme for a new bank, proposed 
to the legislature of Massachusetts by Mr. White. Between 
such a new bank as his propositions would create, and a rechar- 
tering of the present bank, with modifications, there is no very 
wide, certainly no irreconcilable difference. We cannot, how- 
ver, create another bank before March, 1836. This is one rea- 
aon for preferring a continuance of the present. And, treating 
the subject as a practical question, and looking to the state of 
opinion, and to the probability of success in either attempt, I in- 
cline to the opinion that the true course of policy is to propose 
a recharter of the present bank, with modifications. 

As to what these modifications should be, I would only now 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 15 


observe, that, while it may well be inferred, from my known sen- 
timents, that I should not myself deem any alterations in the 
charter beyond those proposed by the bill of 1832 highly essen- 
tial, yet it is a case in which, I am aware, nothing can be effected 
for the good of the country without making some approaches to 
unity of opinion. I think, therefore, that, in the hope of accom- 
plishing an object of so much importance, liberal concessions 
should be made. I lay out of the case all consideration of any 
especial claim, or any legal right, of the present stockholders to 
a renewal of their charter. No such right can be pretended; 
doubtless none such is pretended. ‘lhe stockholders must stand 
like other individuals, and their interest must be regarded so far, 
and so far only, as may be judged for the public good. Mod- 
ifications of the present charter should, I think, be proposed, such 
as may remove all reasonable grounds of jealousy in all quar- 
ters, whether in States, in other institutions, or in individuals; 
such, too, as may tend to reconcile the interests of the great city 
where the bank is with those of another great city; and, in short, 
the question should be met with a sincere disposition to accom- 
plish, by united and friendly counsels, a measure which shall 
allay fears and promote confidence, at the same time that it se- 
cures to the country a sound, creditable, uniform currency, and 
to the government a safe deposit for the public treasure, and an 
important auxiliary in its financial operations. 

I repeat, then, Sir, that Iam in favor of renewing the charter 
of the present bank, with such alterations as may be expected to 
meet the general sense of the country. 

And now, Mr. President, to avoid all unfounded inferences, I 
wish to say, that these suggestions are to be regarded as wholly 
my own. ‘They are made without the knowledge of the bank, 
and with no understanding or concert with any of its friends. I 
have not understood, indeed, that the bank itself proposes to ap- 
ply, at present, for a renewal of its charter. Whether it does so 
or not, my suggestions are connected with no such purpose of 
the bank, nor with any other purpose which it may be supposed 
to entertain. I take up the subject on public grounds, purely 
and exclusively. 

And, Sir, in order to repel all inferences of another sort, I wish 
to state, with equal distinctness, that Ido not undertake to speak 
the sentiments of any individual heretofore opposed to the bank, 


O16 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


or belonging to that class of public men who have generally op- 
posed it. I state my own opinions; if others should concur in 
them, it will be only because they approve them, and will not be 
the result of any previous concert or understanding whatever. 
Finally, Mr. President, having stated my own opinions, I re- 
spectfully ask those who propose to continue the discussion now 
going on, relative to the deposits, to let the country see their 
plan for the final settlement of the present difficulties. If they 
are against the bank, and against all banks, what do they pro- 
pose? 'That the country will not be satisfied with the present 
state of things, seems to be certain. What state of things is to 
succeed it? 'To these questions I desire earnestly to call the 
attention of the Senate and of the country. The occasion is 
critical, the interests at stake momentous, and, in my judgment, 
Congress ought not to adjourn till it shall have passed some law 
suitable to the exigency, and satisfactory to the country. 


Gn the 30th day of January, Mr. Wright, of New York, presented 
to the Senate sundry resolutions, passed by the legislature of New 
York, approving the removal of the deposits, and disapproving of any 
Bank of the United States. 

In presenting these resolutions, Mr. Wright, among other observations, 
expressed his decided hostility to the renewal of the charter of the pres- 
ent bank, or the creation of any other. He said that he would oppose 
this bank upon the ground of its flagrant violations of the high trusts 
confided to it, but that his objections were of a still deeper and graver 
character; that he went against this bank, and against any and every 
bank to be incorporated by Congress, to be located anywhere within the 
twenty-four States. He expressed a strong opinion, too, that the exist- 
ing distress arose from the conduct of the bank in curtailing its loans ; 
and that this curtailment had been made with a view to extort a renewal 
of its charter from the fears of the people. 

As to what was to be done, under present circumstances, in order to 
relieve the public pressure, Mr. Wright said, that, speaking for himself 
only, he would sustain the executive branch of the government, by all 
the legal means in his power, in the effort now making to substitute the 
State banks, instead of the Bank of the United States, as the fiscal agent 
of the government. 

When Mr. Wright had concluded his remarks, Mr. Webster said *— 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 517 


I cannot consent to let the opportunity pass, without a few 
observations upon what we have now heard. Sir, the remarks 
of the honorable member from New York are full of the most 
portentous import. ‘They are words, not of cheering or con- 
solation, but of ill-boding signification; and, as they spread far 
and wide, in their progress from the capital through the country, 
they will carry with them, if I mistake not, gloom, apprehen- 
sion, and dismay. I consider the declarations which the honor- 
able member has now made, as expressing the settled purpose 
of the administration on the great question which so much agi- 
tates the country. 


Here Mr. Wright rose, and said that he had given his opinion as an 
individual, and that he had no authority to speak for the administration. 
Mr. Webster continued : — 


I perfectly well understand, Sir, all the gentleman’s disclaim- 
ers and demurrers. He speaks, to be sure, in his own name 
only; but, from his political connections, his station, and his re- 
lations, I know full well that he has not, on this occasion, spoken 
one word which has not been deliberately weighed and consid- 
ered by others as well as himself. 

He has announced, therefore, to the country, two things clearly 
and intelligibly : — 

First, that the present system (if system it is to be called) is 
to remain unaltered. ‘The public moneys are to remain, as they 
now are, in the State banks, and the whole public revenue is 
hereafter to be collected through the agency of such banks. 
This is the first point. The gentleman has declared his full 
and fixed intention to support the administration in this course, 
and therefore it cannot be doubted that this course has been 
determined on by the administration. No plan is to be laid be- 
fore Congress; no system is to be adopted by authority of law. 
The effect of a law would be to place the public deposits beyond 
the power of daily change, and beyond the absolute control of 
the executive. But no such fixed arrangement is to take place. 
The whole is to be left completely at the pleasure of the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury, who may change the public moneys from 
place to place, and from bank to bank, as often as he pleases. 

The second thing now clearly made known, and of which, in- 
deed, there have been many previous intimations, is, Sir, that a 

VOL. III. dd 


018 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


great effort is to be made, or rather an effort already made is to 
be vigorously renewed and continued, to turn the public com- 
plaints against the bank instead of the government, and to 
persuade the people that all their sufferings arise, not from the 
act of the administration in removing the public deposits, but 
from the conduct of the bank since that was done. It is to be 
asserted here, and will be the topic of declamation everywhere, 
that, notwithstanding the removal of the deposits, if the bank 
had not acted wrong, there would have been no pressure or 
distress on the country. ‘The object, it is evident, will now be 
to divert public attention from the conduct of the Secretary, and 
fix it on that of the bank. This is the second thing which is to 
be learned from the speech of the member from New York. 

The honorable member has said that new honors are to be 
gained by the President, from the act which he is about to ac- 
complish; that he is to bring back legislation to its original lim- 
its, and to establish the great truth, that Congress has no power 
to create a national bank. I shall not stop to argue whether 
Congress can charter a bank in this little Distriet, which shall 
operate everywhere throughout the Union, and yet cannot es- 
tablish one in any of the States. The gentleman seemed to 
leave that point, as if Congress had such a power. But all must 
see that, if Congress cannot establish a bank in one of the States, 
with branches in the rest, it would be mere evasion to say that it 
might establish a bank here, with branches in the several States. 

Congress, it is alleged, has not the constitutional power to 
create a bank. Sir, on what does this power rest, in the opin- 
ion of those of us who maintain it? Simply on this; that it is 
a power which is necessary and proper for the purpose of carry- 
ing other powers into effect. A fiscal agent, an auxiliary to the 
treasury, a machine, a something, is necessary for the purposes 
, of the government; and Congress, under the general authority 
conferred upon it, can create that fiscal agent, that machine, 
that something, and call it a bank. This is what I contend for; 
but this the gentleman denies, and says that it is not competent 
to Congress to create a fiscal agent for itself, but that it may 
employ as such agents institutions not created by itself, but by 
others, and which are beyond the control of Congress. It is 
admitted that the agent is necessary, and that Congress has tne 
power to employ it; but it is insisted, nevertheless, that Con- 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 519 


gress cannot create it, but must take such as is or may be already 
created. I do not agree to the soundness of this reasoning. Sup- 
pose there were no State banks; as the gentleman admits the 
necessity of a bank in that case, how can he hold such discordant 
opinions as to assert that Congress could not, in that case, cre- 
ate one? The agency of a bank is necessary ; and, because it 
is necessary, we may use it, provided others will make a bank 
for us; but if they will not, we cannot make one for ourselves, 
however necessary! ‘This is the proposition. 

For myself, I must confess that Iam too obtuse to see the 
distinction between the power of creating a bank for the use of 
the government, and the power of taking into its use banks 
already created. ‘To make and to use, or to make and to hire, 
must require the same power in this case, and be either both 
constitutional or both equally unconstitutional; except that 
every consideration of propriety and expediency and conven- 
lence requires that Congress should make a bank which will 
suit its own purposes, answer its own ends, and be subject to 
its own control, rather than use other banks, which were not 
created for any such purpose, are not suited to it, and over which 
Congress can exercise no supervision. 

On one or two other points, Sir, I wish to say a word. The 
gentleman differs from me as to the degree of pressure on the 
country. He admits that, in some parts, there is some degree 
of pressure; in large cities, he supposes there may be distress ; 
but he asserts that everywhere else the pressure is limited; that 
everywhere it is greatly exaggerated; and that’ it will soon be 
over. ‘This is mere matter of opinion. It is capable of no pre- 
cise and absolute proof or disproof. ‘The avenues of knowledge 
are equally open to all. But I can truly say, that I differ from 
the gentleman on this point most materially and most widely. 
From the information I have received during the last few weeks, 
I have every reason to believe that the pressure is very severe, 
has become very general, and is fast increasing; and I see no 
chance of its diminution, unless measures of relief shall be 
adopted by the government. 

But the gentleman has discovered, or thinks he has discov- 
ered, motives for the complaints which arise on all sides. It is 
all but an attempt to bring the administration into disfavor. 
‘This alone is the reason why the removat of the deposits is so 


520 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


strongly censured! Sir, the gentleman is mistaken. He does 
not, at least I think he does not, rightly interpret the signs 
of the times. The cause of complaint is much deeper and 
stronger than any mere desire to produce political effect. The 
gentleman must be aware, that, notwithstanding the great vote 
by which the New York resolutions were carried, and the sup- 
port given by other proceedings to the removal of the deposits, 
there are many as ardent friends of the President as are to be | 
found anywhere who exceedingly regret and deplore the meas- 
ure. Sir, on this floor there has been going on for many 
weeks as interesting a debate as has been witnessed for twenty 
years; and yet I have not heard, among all who have supported 
the administration, a single Senator say that .he approved the 
removal of the deposits, or was glad it had taken place, until the 
gentleman from New York spoke. I saw the gentleman from 
Georgia approach that point; but he shunned direct contact. 
He complained much of the bank; he insisted, too, on the 
power of removal; but I did not hear him say he thought it a 
wise act. The gentleman from Virginia, not now in his: seat, 
also defended the power, and has arraigned the bank; but has 
he said that he approved the measure of removal? I have not 
met with twenty individuals, in or out of Congress, who have 
expressed an approval of it, among the many hundreds whose 
opinions I have: heard,— not twenty who have maintained that 
it was a wise proceeding; but I have heard individuals of ample 
fortune, although they wholly disapproved the measure, declare, 
nevertheless, that, since it was adopted, they would sacrifice all 
they possessed rather than not support it. Such is the warmth 
of party zeal. 

Sir, it is a mistake to suppose that the present agitation of the 
country springs from mere party motives. It is a great mistake. 
Every body is not a politician. ‘The mind of every man in the 
country is not occupied with the project of subverting one ad- 
mninistration, and setting up another. ‘The gentleman has done 
vreat injustice to the people. I know, Sir, that great injustice 
has been done to the memorialists from Boston, whose resolu- 
tions I presented some days since, some of whom are very ar- 
dent friends of the President, and can have been influenced by 
no such motive as-has been attributed to them. 

But, Mr. President, I think I heard yesterday something from 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 521 


the gentleman from Pennsylvania indicative of an intention te 
direct the hostility of the country against the bank, and to as- 
cribe to the bank alone the existing public distress. But it was 
the duty of the government to have foreseen the consequences 
of the removal of the deposits; and gentlemen have no right 
first to attack the bank, charge it with great offences, and thus 
attempt to shake its credit, and then complain when the bank 
undertakes to defend itself, and to avoid the great risk which 
must threaten it from the hostility of the government to its prop- 
erty and character. ‘The government has placed itself in an ex- 
traordinary relation, not only toward the banks, but toward the 
business and currency of the country, by the removal of the depos- 
its. The bills of the bank are lawful currency in all payments 
to government; yet we see the executive warring on the credit 
of this national currency. We have seen the institution as- 
sailed, which, by law, was provided to supply the revenue. Is 
not this a new course? Does the recollection of the gentleman 
furnish any such instance? What other institution could stand 
against such hostility? The Bank of England could not stand 
against it a single hour. The Bank of France would perish at 
the first breath of such hostility. But the Bank of the United 
States has sustained its credit under every disadvantage, and 
has ample means to sustain it to the end. Its credit is in no 
degree shaken, though its operations are necessarily curtailed. 
What has the bank done? The gentleman from New York 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania have alleged that it is not 
because of the removal of the deposits that there is pressure in 
the country, but because of the conduct of the bank. The latter 
gentleman, especially, alleges that the bank began to curtail its 
discounts before the removal of the deposits, and at a time when 
it was only expected that they would be removed. Indeed! and 
did not the bank, by taking this course, prove that it foresaw 
correctly what was to take place? and because it adopted a 
course of preparation, in order to break the blow which was 
about to fall upon it, this also is to be added to the grave cata- 
logue of its offences. ‘The bank, it seems, has curtailed to the 
amount of nine millions. Has she, indeed? And is not that 
exactly the amount of deposits which the government has with- 
drawn? ‘The bank, then, has curtailed precisely so much as the 
government has drawn away from it. No other bank in the 


44 * 


522 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


world could have gone on with so small a curtailment. While 
public confidence was diminishing all around the bank, it only 
curtailed just as much as it lost by the act of the government. 
The bank would be justified, even without the withdrawal of 
the deposits, in curtailing its discounts gradually, and continu- 
ing to do so to the end of its charter, considering the hostility 
manifested to its further continuance. ‘The government has 
refused to recharter it. Its term of existence is approaching: 
one of the duties which it has to perform is to make its collec- 
tions; and the process of collection, since it must be slow, ought 
to be commenced in season. It is, therefore, its duty to begin 
its curtailments, so that the process may be gradual. 

I hope that I have not been misunderstood in my remarks the 
other morning. ‘The gentleman from New York has represent- 
ed me as saying, that it is not the removal of the deposits which 
has caused the public distress. What I said was, that if the 
government had required twice nine millions for its service, the 
withdrawal of that amount from the bank, without any inter- 
ruption of the good understanding between the government and 
the bank, would not have caused this pressure and distrust. 
Every thing turns on the circumstances under which the with- 
drawal is made. If public confidence is not shaken, all is well; 
but if it is, all, all is difficulty and distress. And this confidence 
is shaken. 

It has been said by the gentleman from New York, that gov- 
ernment has no design against the bank; that it only desires to 
withdraw the public deposits. Yet, in the very paper submit- 
ted to Congress by the executive department, the bank is ar- 
raigned as unconstitutional in its very origin, and also as having 
broken its charter and violated its obligations, and its very ex- 
istence is said to be dangerous to the country! Is not all this 
calculated to injure the character of the bank, and to shake con- 
fidence? ‘The bank has its foreign connections, and is much 
engaged in the business of foreign exchanges; and what will be 
thought at Paris and London, when the community there shall 
sce all these charges made by the government against a bank in 
which they have always reposed the highest trust? Does not 
this injure its reputation? Does it not compel it to take a de- 
fensive attitude? 'The gentleman from New York spoke of the 
power in the country to put down the bank, and of doing as our 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 523 


fathers did in the time of the Revolution, and has called on the 
people to rise and put down this money power, as our ancestors 
put down the oppressive rule of Great Britain! All this is well 
calculated to produce the eflect which is intended; and all this, 
too, helps further to shake confidence. It all injures the bank, it 
all compels it to curtail more and more. 

Sir, I venture to predict that the longer gentlemen pursue the 
experiment which they have devised, of collecting the public 
revenue by State banks, the more perfectly will they be satisfied 
that it cannot succeed. The gentleman has suffered himself to 
be led away by false analogies. He says, that when the present 
bank expires, there will be the same laws in existence as when the 
old bank expired. Now, would it not be the inference of every 
wise man, that there will also be the same inconveniences as were 
then felt? It would be useful to remember the state of things 
which existed when the first bank was created, in 179L; and 
that a high degree of convenience, which amounted to political 
necessity, compelled Congress thus early to create a national 
bank. Its charter expired in 1811, and the war came on the 
next year. The State banks immediately stopped payment; 
and, before the war had continued twelve months, there was a 
proposition for another United States Bank; and this proposal 
was renewed from year to year, and from session to session. 
Who supported this proposition? The very individuals who 
had opposed the former bank, and who had now become con- 
vinced of the indispensable necessity of such an institution. — It 
has been verified by experience, that the bank is as necessary in 
time of peace as in time of war; and perhaps more necessary, 
for the purpose of facilitating the commercial operations of the 
country, collecting the revenue, and sustaining the currency. It 
has been alleged, that we are to be left in the same condition 
as when the old bank expired, and, of course, we are to be sub- 
jected to the same inconveniences. Sir, why should we thus 
suffer all experience to be lost upon us? For the convenience 
of the government and of the country, there must be some bank, 
at least I think so; and I should wish to hear the views of t:e 
administration as to this point. 

The notes and bills of the Bank of the United States have 
heretofore been circulated everywhere; they meet the wants of 
every one; they have furnished a safe and most convenient curs 


524 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


rency. It is impossible for Congress by enactment to confer a 
certain value on the paper of the State banks. They may say 
that these banks are entitled to credit; but they cannot legislate 
them into the good opinion and faith of the public. Credit is a 
thing which must take its own course. It can never happen 
that the New York notes will be at par value in Louisiana, or 
that the notes of the Louisiana banks will be at par value in 
New York. In the notes of the United States Bank we have a 
currency of equal value everywhere; and | say that there is not 
to be found, in the whole world, another institution whose notes 
spread so far and wide, with perfect credit in all places. ‘There 
is no instance of a bank whose paper is spread over so vast a 
surface of country, and is everywhere of such equal value. How 
can it be, that a number of State banks, scattered over two 
thousand miles of country, subject to twenty-four different State 
legislatures and State tribunals, without the possibility of any 
general concert of action, can supply the place of one general 
bank? It cannot be. I see, Sir, in the doctrines which have 
been advanced to-day, only new distress and disaster, new inse- 
curity, and more danger to property than the country has expe- 
rienced for many years; because it is in vain to attempt to up- 
hold the occupations of industry, unless property is made secure; 
or the value of labor, unless its recompense is safe. But an 
opportunity will occur for resuming this subject hereafter. I 
forbear to dwell upon it at present. 

A word or two on one other point. It was said by me, ona 
former day, that this immediate question of the deposits does 
not necessarily draw after it the question of rechartering the 
Bank of the United States. It leaves that question for future 
adjustment. But the present question involves high political 
considerations, which I am not now about to discuss. If the 
question of the removal of the deposits be not now taken into 
view, gentlemen will be bound to vote on the resolutions of the 
Senator from Kentucky," as to the power which has been claimed 
and exercised. The question, then, is not as to the renewing of 
the charter of the bank. But I repeat, that, however gentlemen 
may flatter themselves, if it be not settled that the deposits are 
te be restored, nothing will be settled; negative resolutions will 


* Mr. Clay. 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 525 


not tranquillize the country and give it repose. The question is 
before the country; all agree that it must be settled by that coun- 
try. I very much regret that topics are mixed up with the ques- 
tion which may prevent it from being submitted to the calm 
judgment of the people. Yet I have not lost faith in public sen- 
timent. Events are occurring daily, which will make the people 
think for themselves. The industrious, the enterprising, will see 
the danger which surrounds them, and will awake. If the ma- 
jority of the people shall then say there is no necessity for a con- 
tinuance of this sound and universal currency, I will acquiesce 
in their judgment, because I can do no otherwise than acquiesce. 
If the gentleman from New York is right in his reading of the 
prognostics, and public opinion shall settle down in the way 
which he desires; and if it be determined here that the public 
money is to be placed at the disposal of the executive, with 
absolute power over the whole subject of its custody and guar- 
dianship, and that the general currency is to be left to the con- 
trol of banks created by twenty-four States ;— then I say, that, 
in my judgment, one strong bond of our social and _ political 
Union is severed, and one great pillar of our prosperity is broken 
and prostrate. 


Mr. Tallmadge of New York spoke in reply to Mr. Webster, and de- 
nied the constitutional power of Congress to create a bank, although he 
maintained the power of the Secretary to make use of the State banks. 

The subject being resumed the next day, January 31, Mr. Webster 
said : — 


It is not to be denied, Sir, that the financial affairs of the 
country have come, at last, to such a state, that every man can 
see plainly the question which is presented for the decision of 
Congress. We have, unquestionably, before us, now, the views 
of the executive, as to the nature and extent of the evils alleged 
to exist; and its notions, also, as to the proper remedy for such 
evils. ‘That remedy is short. It is, simply, the system of ad- 
ministration already adopted by the Secretary of the 'Treasury, 
and which is nothing but this, that, whenever he shall think 
proper to remove the public moneys from the Bank of the United 
States, and place them wherever else he pleases, this act shall 
stand as the settled policy and system of the country; and this 
system shall rest upon the authority of the executive alone. 


526 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITIS. 


This is now to be our future policy, as I understand the grave, 
significant import of the remarks made yesterday by the gentle- 
man from New York, and as I perceive they are generally un- 
derstood, and as they are evidently understood by the gentleman 
from Mississippi,* who has alluded to them on presenting his 
resolutions this morning. I wish, Sir, to take this, the earliest 
opportunity, of stating my opinions upon this subject; and that 
opinion is, that the remedy proposed by the administration for 
the evils under which the country is at this time suflering can- 
not bring relief, will not give satisfaction, and cannot be acqui- 
esced in. I think the country, on the other hand, will show 
much dissatisfaction; and that from no motive of hostility to 
the government, from no disposition to make the currency of the 
country turn upon political events, or to make political events 
turn upon the question of the currency; but simply because, in 
my judgment, the system is radically defective, totally insufh- 
cient, carrying with it little confidence of the public, and none 
at all beyond what it acquires merely by the influence of the 
name which recommends it. 

I do not intend now, Mr. President, to go into a regular and 
formal argument to prove the constitutional power of Congress 
to establish a national bank. ‘That question has been argued a 
hundred times, and always settled the same way. ‘The whole 
history of the country, for almost forty years, proves that sucha 
power has been believed to exist. All previous Congresses, or 
nearly all, have admitted or sanctioned it; the judicial tribunals, 
federal and State, have sanctioned it. ‘The Supreme Court of 
the United States has declared the constitutionality of the pres- 
ent bank, after the most solemn argument, without a dissenting 
voice on the bench. Every successive President has, tacitly or 
expressly, admitted the power. The present President has done 
this; he has informed Congress that he could furnish the plan 
of a bank which should conform to the Constitution. In object- 
ing to the recharter of the present bank, he objected for particu- 
lar reasons; and he has said that a Bank of the United States 
would be useful and convenient for the people. 

All this authority, I think, ought to settle the question. Both 
the members from New York, however, are still unsatisfied ; 


* Mr. Poindexter. 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS 527 


they both deny the power of Congress to establish a bank. 
Now, Sir, I shall not argue the question at this time; but I will 
repeat what I said yesterday. It does appear to me, that the 
late measures of the administration prove incontestably, and by 
a very short course of reasoning, the constitutionality of the 
bank. What I said yesterday, and what I say to-day, is, that, 
since the Secretary, and all who agree with the Secretary, admit 
the necessity of the agency of some bank to carry on the affairs 
of government, I am at a loss to see where they could find 
power to use a State bank, and yet find no power to create a 
Bank of the United States. The gentleman’s perception may 
be sharp enough to see a distinction between these two 
eases; but it is too minute for my grasp. It is not said, in 
terms, in the Constitution, that Congress may create a bank; 
nor is it said, in terms, that Congress may use a bank created 
by a State. How, then, does it get authority to do either? No 
otherwise, certainly, than as it possesses power to pass all 
laws necessary and proper for carrying its enumerated powers 
into effect. If a law were now before us for confirming the ar- 
rangement of the Secretary, and adopting twenty State banks 
into the service of the United States, as fiscal agents of the 
government, where would the honorable gentleman find author- 
ity for passing such a law? Nowhere but in that clause of the 
Constitution to which I have referred; that is to say, the clause 
which authorizes Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper 
for carrying its granted powers into effect. If such a law were 
before us, and the honorable member proposed to vote for it, he 
would be obliged to prove that the agency of a bank is a thing 
both necessary and proper for carrying on the government. If 
he could not make this out, the law would be unconstitutional. 
We see the Secretary admits the necessity of this bank agency ; 
the gentleman himself admits it, nay, contends for it. A bank 
agency is his mainreliance. All the hopes expressed by himself 
or his colleague, of being able to get on with the present state of 
things, rest on the expected efficiency of a bank agency. 

A bank, then, or some bank, being admitted to be both ne- 
cessary and proper for carrying on the government, and the Sec- 
retary proposing, cn that very ground, and no other, to em- 
ploy the State banks, how does he make out a distinction be- 
tween passing a law for using a necessary agent, already created, 


O28 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


and a law for creating a similar agent, to be used, when created, 
for the same purpose? If there be any distinction, as it seems 
to me, it is rather in favor of creating a bank, by the authority 
of Congress, with such powers, and no others, as the service 
expected from it requires, answerable to Congress, and always 
under the control of Congress, than of employing as our agents 
banks created by other governments, for other purposes, and 
over which this government has no control. 

But, Sir, whichever power is exercised, both spring from the 
same source; and the power to establish a bank, on the ground 
that its agency is necessary and proper for the ends and uses 
of government, is at least as plainly constitutional as the power 
to adopt banks, for the same uses and objects, which are already 
made by other governments. Inded, the legal act is, in both 
cases, the same. When Congress makes a bank, it creates an 
agency; when it adopts a State bank, it creates an agency. If 
there be power for one, therefore, there is power for the other. 
No power to create a corporation is expressly given to Con- 
gress; nor is Congress anywhere forbidden to create a corpora- 
tion. 'The creation of a corporation is an act of law, and when 
it passes, the only question is, whether it be a necessary and 
proper law for carrying on the government advantageously. 
The case will be precisely the same when we shall be asked to 
pass a law for confirming the Secretary’s arrangement with State 
banks. Hach is constitutional, if Congress may fairly regard 
it as a necessary measure. 

The honorable member, Sir, quoted me as having said that I 
regarded the bank as one of the greatest bonds of the union of 
the States. That is not exactly what I said. What I did say 
was, that the constitutional power vested in Congress over the 
legal currency of the country was one of its very highest powers, 
and that the exercise of this high power was one of the strong- 
est bonds of the union of the States. And this I say still. 
Sir, the gentleman did not go to the Constitution. He did not 
tell us how he understands it, or how he proposes to execute the 
great trust which it devolves on Congress in respect to the cir- 
culating medium. I can only say, Sir, how I understand it. 

The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power “ to 
coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin.” 
And it also declares that “no State shall coin money, emit bills 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 529 


of credit, or make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in 
payment of debts.” Congress, then, and Congress only, can 
coin money, and regulate the value thereof. Now, Sir, I take it 
to be a truth, which has grown into an admitted maxim with all 
the best writers and the best informed public men, that those 
whose duty it is to protect the community against the evils of a 
debased coin, are bound also to protect it against the still greater 
evils of excessive issues of paper. 

If the public require protection, says Mr. Ricardo, against bad 
money, which might be imposed on them by an undue mixture 
of alloy, how much more necessary is such protection when 
paper money forms almost the whole of the circulating medium 
of the country! 

It is not to be doubted, Sir, that the Constitution intended 
that Congress should exercise a regulating power, a power both 
necessary and salutary, over that which should constitute the 
actual money of the country, whether that money were coin or 
the representative of coin. So it has always been considered: 
so Mr. Madison considered it, as may be seen in his message 
of the 3d of December, 1816. He there says: — 


‘* Upon this general view of the subject, it is obvious that there is only 
wanting to the fiscal prosperity of the government the restoration of a 
uniform medium of exchange. ‘The resources and the faith of the 
nation, displayed in the system which Congress has established, insure 
respect and confidence both at homevand abroad. ‘The local accumula- 
tions of the revenue have already enabled the treasury to meet the 
public engagements in the local currency of most of the States; and it 
,s expected that the same cause will produce the same effect throughout 
the Union. But for the interests of the community at large, as well as 
for the purposes of the treasury, it is essential that the nation should 
possess a currency of equal value, credit, and use, wherever it may 
circulate. The Constitution has intrusted Congress exclusively with the 
power of creating and regulating a currency of that description; and 
the measures which were taken during the last session, in execution of 
the power, give every promise of success. The Bank of the United 
States has been organized under auspices the most favorable, and can- 
not fail to be an important auxiliary to those measures.” 


The State banks put forth paper as representing coin. As 
such representative, it obtains circulation; it becomes the money 
of the country; but its amount depends on the will of four hun- 

VOL, III. 45 


va0 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


dred different State banks, each acting on its own discretion; 
and in the absence of every thing preventive or corrective on the 
part of the United States, what security is there against ex- 
cessive issues of paper, and consequent depreciation? The 
public feels that there is no security against these evils; it has 
Jearned this from experience; and this very feeling, this distrust 
of the paper of State banks, is the very evil which they them- 
selves have to encounter; and it is a most serious evil. ‘They 
know that confidence in them is far greater when there exists a 
power elsewhere to prevent excess and depreciation. ‘Such a 
power, therefore, is friendly to their best interests. It gives con- 
fidence and credit to them, one and all. Hence a vast majority 
of the State banks, nearly all, perhaps, except those who expect 
to be objects of particular favor, desire the continuance of a na- 
tional bank, as an institution highly useful to themselves. 

The mode in which the operations of a national institution 
afford security against excessive issues by local banks is not vio- 
lent, coercive, or injurious. On the contrary, it is gentle, salutary, 
and friendly. The result is brought about by the natural and 
easy operation of things. The money of the Bank of the United 
States, having a more wide-spread credit and character, is con- 
stantly wanted for purposes of remittance. It is purchased, there- 
fore, for this purpose, and paid for in the bills of local banks: 
and it may be purchased, of course, at par, or near it, if these 
local bills are offered in the neighborhood of their own banks, 
and these banks are’in good credit. These local bills then re- 
turn to the bank that issued them. ‘The result is, that, while 
the local bills will or may supply, in great part, the local circu- 
lation (not being capable, for want of more extended credit, of 
being remitted to great distances), their amount is thus limited 
to the purposes of local circulation; and any considerable ex- 
cess beyond this finds, in due season, a salutary corrective. This 
is one of the known benefits of the bank. Every man of busi- 
ness understands it, and the whole country has realized the se- 
curity which this course of things has produced. 

But, Sir, as to the question of the deposits, the honorable gen- 
tleman thinks he sees, at last, the curtain raised; he sees the 
object of the whole debate. He insists that the question of the 
restoration of the deposits, and the question of rechartering the 
bank, are the same question. It strikes me, Sir, as being 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. o3l 


strange that the gentleman did not draw an exactly opposite in- 
ference from his own premises. He says he sees the Northern 
friends of the bank and the Southern opposers of the bank 
agreeing for the restoration of the deposits. This is true; and 
does not this prove that the question is a separate one? On the 
one question, the North and the South are together; on ‘the 
other, they separate. Either their apprehensions are obtuse, er 
else this very statement shows the questions to be distinct. 

Sir, since the gentleman has referred to the North and the 
South, I will venture to ask him if he sees nothing important in 
the aspect which the South presents? On this question of the 
deposits, does he not behold almost an entire unanimity in the 
South? How many from the Potomac to the Gulf of Mexico 
defend the removal? For myself, I declare that I have not 
heard a member of Congress from beyond the Potomac say, 
either in or out of his seat, that he approved the measure. Can 
the gentleman see nothing in this but proof that the deposit 
question and the question of recharter are the same? Sir, gen- 
tlemen must judge for themselves; but it appears plain enough 
to me that the President has lost more friends at the South by 
this interference with the public deposits than by any or all 
other measures. 

I must be allowed now, Sir, to advert to a remark in the 
speech of the honorable member from New York on the left of 
the Chair,* as I find it in a morning paper. It is this: — 


“Be assured, Sir, whatever nice distinctions may be drawn here as 
to the show of influence which expressions of the popular will upon such 
a subject are entitled to from us, it is possible for that will to assume a 
constitutional shape, which the Senate cannot misunderstand, and, un- 
derstanding, will not unwisely resist.” 


Mr. Wright said, it should have been share of influence. Mr. Web- 
ster continued : — 


That does not alter the sense. Mr. President, I wish to keep 
the avenues of public opinion, from the whole country to the 
Capitol, all open, broad, and straight. I desire always to know 
the state of that opinion on great and important subjects. From 
me, that opinion always has received, and always will receive, 
the most respectful attention and consideration. And whether 


* Mr. Wright. 


532 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


it be expressed by State legislatures, or by public meetings, or be 
collected from individual expressions, in whatever form it comes, 
itis always welcome. But, Sir, the legislation for the United 
States must be conducted here. The law of Congress must be 
the will of Congress, and the proceedings of Congress its own 
proceedings. I hope nothing intimidating was intended by this 
expression. ) : 


Mr. Wright intimated it was not. 


Then, Sir, I forbear further remark. 

Sir, there is one other subject on which I wish to raise my 
voice. ‘There is a topic which I perceive is to become the gen- 
eral war-cry of party, on which I take the liberty to warn the 
country against delusion. Sir, the cry is to be raised that this 
is a question between the poor and the rich. I know, Si, it 
has been proclaimed, that one thing was certain, that there was 
always a hatred on the part of the poor toward the rich; and 
that this hatred would support the late measures, and the put- 
ting down of the bank. Sir, I will not be silent at the threat of 
such a detestable fraud on public opinion. If but ten men, or 
one man, in the nation will hear my voice, I will still warn them 
against this attempted imposition. 

Mr. President, this is an eventful moment. On the great 
questions which occupy us, we all look for some decisive move- 
ment of public opinion. As I wish that movement to be free, 
intelligent, and unbiased, the true manifestation of the public 
will, [ desire to prepare the country for another appeal, which I 
perceive is about to be made to popular prejudice, another at- 
tempt to obscure all distinct views of the public good, to over- 
whelm all patriotism and all enlightened self-interest, by loud 
cries against false danger, and by exciting the passions of one 
class against another. Iam not mistaken in the omen; I see 
the magazine whence the weapons of this warfare are to be 
drawn. I hear already the din of the hammering of arms pre- 
paratory to the combat. They may be such arms, perhaps, as 
reason, and justice, and honest patriotism cannot resist. livery 
effort at resistance, it is possible, may be feeble and powerless; 
but, for one, I shall make an effort, —an effort to be begun now, 
and to be carried on and continued, with untiring zeal, till the 
end of the contest. 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 530 


Sir, I see, in those vehicles which carry to the people senti- 
ments from high places, plain declarations that the present con- 
troversy is but a strife between one part of the community and 
another. I hear it boasted as the unfailing security, the solid 
ground, never to be shaken, on which recent measures rest, that 
the poor naturally hate the rich. I know that, under the cover 
of the roofs of the Capitol, within the last twenty-four hours, 
among men sent here to devise means for the public safety and 
the public good, it has been vaunted’ forth, as matter of boast 
and triumph, that one cause existed powerful enough to sup- 
port every thing and to defend every thing; and that was, the 
natural hatred of the poor to the rich. 

Sir, I pronounce the author of such sentiments to be guilty 
of attempting a detestable fraud on the community; a double 
fraud; a fraud which is to cheat men out of their property and 
out of the earnings of their labor, by first cheating them out of 
their understandings. 

“'The natural hatred of the poor to the rich!” Sir, it shall 
not be till the last moment of my existence, —it shall be only 
when I am drawn to the verge of oblivion, when I shall cease 
to have respect or affection for any thing on earth, —that I will 
believe the people of the United States capable of being eflectu- 
ally deluded, cajoled, and driven about in herds, by such abom- 
inable frauds as this. If they shall sink to that point, if they 
so far cease to be men, thinking men, intelligent men, as to 
yield to such pretences and such clamor, they will be slaves 
already; slaves to their own passions, slaves to the fraud and 
knavery of pretended friends. ‘They will deserve to be blotted 
out of all the records of freedom; they ought not to dishonor 
the cause of self-government, by attempting any longer to exer- 
cise it; they ought to keep their unworthy hands entirely off 
from the cause of republican liberty, if they are capable of being 
the victims of artifices so shallow, of tricks so stale, so thread- 
bare, so often practised, so much worn out, on serfs and slaves. 

“The natural hatred of the poor against the rich!” “ The 
danger of a moneyed aristocracy!” “A power as great and 
dangerous as that resisted by the Revolution!” “A call toa 
new declaration of independence!” Su, I admonish the people 
against the object of outcries like these. I admonish every in- 
dustrious laborer in the country to be on his guard against such 

45* 


de4 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


delusion. I tell him the attempt is to play off his passions 
against his interests, and to prevail on him, in the name of lib- 
erty, to destroy all the fruits of liberty; in the name of patriot- 
ism, to injure and afflict his country; and in the name of his 
own independence, to destroy that very independence, and make 
him a beggar and a slave. -Has he a dollar? He is advised to 
do that which will destroy half its value. Has he hands to la- 
bor? Let him rather fold them, and sit still, than be pushed on, 
by fraud and artifice, to support measures which will render his 
labor useless and hopeless. 

Sir, the very man, of all others, who has the deepest interest 
in a sound currency, and who suffers most by mischievous leg- 
islation in money matters, is the man who earns his daily bread 
by his daily toil. A depreciated currency, sudden changes of 
prices, paper money, falling between morning and noon, and 
falling still lower between noon and night, — these things consti- 
tute the very harvest-time of speculators, and of the whole race 
of those who are at once idle and crafty; and of that other race, 
too, the Catilines of all times, marked, so as to be known for 
ever by one stroke of the historian’s pen, those greedy of other 
men’s property and prodigal of their own. Capitalists, too, may 
outlive such times. ‘They may either prey on the earnings of 
labor, by their cent. per cent., or they may hoard. But the labor- 
ing man, what can he hoard? Preying on nobody, he becomes 
the prey of all. His property is in his hands. His reliance, his 
fund, his productive freehold, his all, is his labor. Whether he 
work on his own small capital, or another’s, his living is still 
earned by his industry; and when the money of the country be- 
comes depreciated and debased, whether it be adulterated coin 
or paper without credit, that industry is robbed of its reward. 
He then labors for a country whose laws cheat him out of his 
bread. I would say to every owner of every quarter-section of 
land in the West, I would say to every man in the Kast who 
follows his own plough, and to every mechanic, artisan, and la- 
borer in every city in the country, — I would say to every man, 
everywhere, who wishes by honest means to gain an honest liv- 
ing, “ Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Whoever attempts, 
under whatever popular cry, to shake the stability of the public 
currency, bring on distress in money matters, and drive the coun- 
try into the use of paper money, stabs your interest and your 
happiness to the heart.” 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 035 


The herd of hungry wolves who live on other men’s earnings 
will rejoice in such a state of things. A system which absorbs 
into their pockets the fruits of other men’s industry is the very 
system for them. A government that produces or counte- 
nances uncertainty, fluctuations, violent risings and fallings in 
prices, and, finally, paper money, is a government exactly af- 
ter their own heart. Hence these men are always for change. 
They will never let well enough alone. <A condition of public 
affairs in which property is safe, industry certain of its reward, 
and every man secure in his own hard-earned gains, is no para- 
dise for them. Give them just the reverse of this state of things; 
bring on change, and change after change; let it not be known 
to-day what will be the value of property to-morrow; let no 
man be able to say whether the money in his pockets at night 
will be money or worthless rags in the morning; and depress 
labor till double work shall earn but half a living,— give them 
this state of things, and you give them the consummation of 
their earthly bliss. 

Sir, the great interest of this great country, the producing 
cause of all its prosperity, is labor! labor! labor! We area 
laboring community. A vast majority of us all live by indus- 
try and actual employment in some of their forms. The Consti- 
tution was made to protect this industry, to give it both encour- 
agement and security; but, above all, security. ‘To that very 
end, with that precise object in view, power was given to Con- 
gress over the currency, and over the money system of the coun- 
try. In forty years’ experience, we have found nothing at all 
adequate to the beneficial execution of this trust but a well- 
conducted national bank. ‘That has been tried, returned to, 
tried again, and always found successful. If it be not the proper 
thing for us, let it be soberly argued against; let something better 
be proposed; let the country examine the matter coolly, and de- 
cide for itself. But whoever shall attempt to carry a question of 
this kind by clamor, and violence, and prejudice ; whoever would 
rouse the people by appeals, false and fraudulent appeals, to their 
love of independence, to resist the establishment of a useful in- 
stitution, because it is a bank, and deals in money, and who 
artfully urges these appeals wherever he thinks there is more of 
honest feeling than of enlightened judgment,— means nothing 
but deception. And whoever has the wickedness to conceive, and 


- 


530 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


the hardihood to avow, a purpose to break down what has been 
found, in forty years’ experience, essential to the protection of 
all interests, by arraying one class against another, and by act- 
ing on such a principle as that the poor always hate the rich, 
shows himself the reckless enemy of all. An enemy to his 
whole country, to all classes, and to every man in it, he deserves 
to be marked especially as the poor man’s curse ! 

Mr. President, I feel that it becomes me to bring to the pres- 
ent crisis all of intellect, all of diligence, all of devotion to the 
public good, that I possess. I act, Sir, in opposition to nobody. 
I desire rather to follow the administration, in a proper remedy 
for the present distress, than to lead. I have felt so from the 
beginning, and until the declaration of yesterday made it certain 
that there is no further measure to be proposed. ‘The expec- 
tation is, that the country will get on under the present state of 
things. Being myself entirely of a different opinion, and looking 
for no effectual relief until some other measure is adopted, I 
shall, nevertheless, be most happy to be disappointed. But if 
I shall not be mistaken, if the pressure shall continue, and if 
the indications of general public sentiment shall point in that 
direction, I shall feel it my duty, let the consequences be what 
they may, to propose a law for altering and continuing the char- 
ter of the Bank of the United States. 


On Saturday, the 22d of February, in a debate on presenting a memo- 
rial from Maine, Mr. Forsyth having, on the day before, described what 
he understood to be the experiment which the executive government was 
trying in regard to the public deposits, Mr. Webster addressed the Sen- 
ate as follows. 


Mr. PresipentT, — The honorable member from Georgia stated 
yesterday, more distinctly than I have before learned it, what 
that experiment is which the government is now trying on the 
revenues and the currency, and, I may add, on the commerce, 
manufactures, and agriculture of this country. If I rightly ap- 
prehend him, this experiment is an attempt to retarn to .an 
exclusive specie currency, first, by employing the State banks 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 537 


as a substitute for the Bank of the United States; and then by 
dispensing with the use of the State banks themselves. 

This, Sir, is the experiment. I thank the gentleman for thus 
stating its character. He has done his duty, and dealt fairly 
with the people, by this exhibition of what the views of the 
executive government are, at this interesting moment. It is cer- 
tainly most proper that the people should see distinctly to what 
end or for what object it is that so much suffering is already 
upon them, and so much more already in visible and near pros- 
pect. 

And now, Sir, is it possible, —is it possible that twelve mil- 
lions of intelligent people can be expected voluntarily to subject 
themselves to severe distress, of unknown duration, for the purpose 
of making trial of an experiment like this? Will a nation that 
is intelligent, well informed of its own interest, enlightened, and 
capable of self-government, submit to suffer embarrassment in 
allits pursuits, loss of capital, loss of employment, and a sudden 
and dead stop in its onward movement in the path of prosperity 
and wealth, until it shall be ascertained whether this new- 
hatched theory shall answer the hopes of those who have devised 
it? Is the country to be persuaded to bear every thing, and bear 
patiently, until the operation of such an experiment, adopted 
for such an avowed object, and adopted, too, without the co- 
operation or consent of Congress, and by the executive power 
alone, shall exhibit its results ? 

In the name of the hundreds of thousands of our suffering 
fellow-citizens, I ask, for what reasonable end is this experiment 
to be tried? What great and good object, worth so much cost, 
is it to accomplish? What enormous evil is to be remedied by 
all this inconvenience and all this suffering? What great calam- 
ity is to be averted? Have the people thronged our doors, and 
loaded our tables with petitions for relief against the pressure of 
some political mischief, some notorious misrule, which this ex- 
periment is to redress? Has it been resorted to in an hour of 
misfortune, calamity, or peril, to save the state? Is it a meas- 
ure of remedy, yielded to the importunate cries of an agitated 
and distressed nation? Far, Sir, very far from all this. ‘There 
was no calamity, there was no suffering, there was no peril, 
when these measures began. At the moment when this ex- 
periment was entered upon, these twelve millions of people 


038 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


were prosperous and happy, not only beyond the example 
of all others, but even beyond their own example in times 
past. 

There was no pressure of public or private distress throughout 
the whole land. All business was prosperous, all industry was 
rewarded, and cheerfulness and content universally prevailed. 
Yet, in the midst of all this enjoyment, with so much to height- 
en and so little to mar it, this experiment comes upon us, to 
harass and oppress us at present, and to affright us for the’ fu- 
ture. Sir, it is incredible; the world abroad will not believe it; 
it is difficult even for us to credit, who see it with our own 
eyes, that the country, at such a moment, should put itself upon 
an experiment fraught with such immediate and overwhelming 
evils, and threatening the property and the employments of the 
people, and all their social and political blessings, with severe 
and long-enduring future inflictions. 

And this experiment, with all its cost, is to be tried, for 
what? Why, simply, Sir, to enable us to try another “ experi- 
ment”; and that other experiment is, to see whether an exclu- 
sive specie currency may not be better than a currency partly 
specie and partly bank paper! ‘The object which it is hoped 
we may effect, by patiently treading this path of endurance, is to 
banish all bank paper, of all kinds, and to have coined money, 
and coined money only, as the actual currency of the country! 

Now, Sir, I altogether deny that such an object is at all de- 
sirable, even if it could be attained. I know, indeed, that all 
paper ought to circulate on a specie basis; that all bank-notes, 
to be safe, must be convertible into gold and silver at the will 
of the holder; and I admit, too, that the issuing of very small 
notes by many of the State banks has too much reduced the 
amount of specie actually circulating. It may be remembered 
that I called the attention of Congress to this subject in 1832, 
and that the bill which then passed both houses for renewing 
the bank charter contained a_ provision designed to produce 
some restraint on the circulation of very small notes. I admit 
there are conveniences in making small payments in specie; 
and I have always not only admitted, but contended, that, if 
all issues of bank-notes under five dollars were discontinued, 
much more specie would be retained in the country, and in the 
circulation; and that great security would result from. this. 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 539 


But we are now debating about an ezelusive specie currency, 
and I deny that an exclusive specie currency is the best currency 
for any highly commercial country; and I deny, especially, that 
such a currency would be best suited to the condition and cir- 
cumstances of the United States. With the enlightened writers 
and practical statesmen of all commercial communities in mod- 
ern times, I have supposed it to be admitted that a well regulat- 
ed, properly restrained, safely limited paper currency, circulating 
on an adequate specie basis, was a thing to be desired, a political 
public advantage to be obtained, if it might be obtained; and, 
more especially, I have supposed that in a new country, with 
resources not yet half developed, with a rapidly increasing popu- 
lation and a constant demand for more and more capital, — that 
is to say, in just such a country as the United States are, I have 
supposed that it was admitted that there are particular and 
extraordinary advantages in a safe and well regulated paper 
currency; because in such a country well regulated bank paper 
not only supplies a convenient medium of payments and of ex- 
change, but also, by the expansion of that medium in a reason- 
able and safe degree, the amount of circulation is kept more 
nearly commensurate with the constantly increasing amount of 
property ; and an extended capital, in the shape of credit, comes 
to the aid of the enterprising and the industrious. It is precisely 
on this credit, created by reasonable expansion of the currency 
in a new country, that men of small capital carry on their 
business. It is exactly by means of this, that industry and 
enterprise are stimulated. If we were driven back to an exclu- 
sively metallic currency, the necessary and inevitable conse- 
quence would be, that all trade would fall into the hands of 
large capitalists. This is so plain, that no man of reflection 
can doubt it. I know not, therefore, in what words to express 
my astonishment, when I hear it said that the present measures 
of government are intended for the good of the many instead of 
the few, for the benefit of the poor, and against the rich; and 
when I hear it proposed, at the same moment, to do away with 
the whole system of credit, and place all trade and commerce, 
therefore, in the hands of those who have adequate capital to 
carry them on without the use of any credit at all. This, Sir, 
would be dividing society, by a precise, distinct, and well- 
defined line, into two classes; first, the small class, who have 


040 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


competent capital for trade, when credit is out of the question, 
and, secondly, the vastly numerous class of those whose living 
must become, in such a state of things, a mere manual oceupa- 
tion, without the use of capital or of any substitute for it. 

Now, Su, it is the effect of a well regulated system of paper 
credit to break in upon this line thus dividing the many from 
the few, and to enable more or less of the more numerous class 
to pass over it, and to participate in the profits of capital by 
means of a safe and convenient substitute for capital; and 
thus to diffuse far more widely the general earnings, and there- 
fore the general prosperity and happiness, of society. Every 
man of observation must have witnessed, in this country, that 
men of heavy capital have constantly complained of bank cireu- 
lation, and a consequent credit system, as injurious to the rights 
of capital. They undoubtedly feel its effects. All that is gained 
by the use of credit is just so much subtracted from the amount 
of their own accumulations, and so much the more has gone to 
the benefit of those who bestow their own labor and industry on 
capital in small amounts. ‘To the great majority, this has been 
of incalculable benefit in the United States; and therefore, Sir, 
whoever attempts the entire overthrow of the system of bank 
credit aims a deadly blow at the interest of that great and in- 
dustrious class, who, having some capital, cannot, nevertheless, 
transact business without some credit. He can mean nothing 
else, if he have any intelligible meaning at all, than to turn all 
such persons over to the long list of mere manual laborers. 
What else can they do, with not enough of absolute capital, 
and with no credit? This, Sir, this is the true tendency and 
the unavoidable result of these measures, which have been un- 
dertaken with the patriotic object of assisting the poor against 
the rich! 

I am well aware that bank credit may be abused. 1 know 
that there is another extreme, exactly the opposite of that of which 
I have now been speaking, and no less sedulously to be avoid- 
ed. I know that the issue of bank paper may become excessive ; 
that depreciation will then follow; and that the evils, the losses, 
and. the frauds consequent on a disordered currency fall on the 
rich and the. poor together, but with especial weight of ruin on 
the poor. I know that the system of bank credit must always 
rest on a specie basis, and that it constantly needs to be strictly 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 541 


guarded and properly restrained ; and it may be so guarded and 
restrained. We need not give up the good which belongs to 
it, through fear of the ae which may follow from its ave. 
We Have the power to take security against these evils. It 
is our business, as statesmen, to adopt atta security ; it is our 
business, not to prostrate, or attempt to prostrate, the system, 
but to use those means of precaution, restraint, and correction, 
which experience has sanctioned, and which are ready at our 
hands. 

It would be to our everlasting reproach, it would be placing 
us below the general level of the intelligence of civilized states, 
to admit that we cannot contrive means to enjoy the benefits of 
bank circulation, and of avoiding, at the same time, its dangers. 
Indeed, Sir, no contrivance is necessary. It is contrivance, and 
the love of contrivance, that spoil all. We are destroying our- 
selves by a remedy which no evil called for. We are ruining 
perfect health by nostrums and quackery. We have lived hith- 
erto under a well constructed, practical, and beneficial system ; 
a system not surpassed by any in the world; and it seems to me 
to be presuming largely, largely indeed, on the credulity and 
self-denial of the people, to rush with such sudden and impetu- 
ous haste into new schemes and new theories, to overturn and 
annihilate all that we have so long found useful. 

Our system has hitherto been one in which paper has been 
circulating on the strength of a specie basis; that is to say, when 
every bank-note was convertible into specie at the will of the 
holder. This has been our guard against excess. While banks 
are bound to redeem their bills by paying gold and silver on 
demand, and are at all times able to do this, the currency is safe 
and convenient. Such a currency is not paper money, in its 
odious sense. It is not like the Continental paper of Revolution- 
ary times; it is not like the worthless bills of banks which have 
suspended specie payments. On the contrary, it is the represent- 
ative of gold and silver, and convertible into gold and silver on 
demand, and therefore answers the purposes of gold and silver; 
and so long as its credit is in this way sustained, it is the cheap- 
est, the best, and the most convenient circulating medium. I 
have already endeavored to warn the country against irredeem- 
able paper; against the paper of banks which dé not pay specie 
for their own notes; against that miserable, abominable, and 

VOL, III. ‘46 


542 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


fraudulent policy, which attempts to give value to any paper, of 
any bank, one single moment longer than such paper is redeetn- 
able on demand in gold and silver. I wish most solemnly and 
earnestly to repeat that warning. I see danger of that state of 
things ahead. I see imminent danger that a portion of the 
State banks will stop specie payments. The late measure of 
the Secretary, and the infatuation with which it seems to be 
supported, tend directly and strongly to that result. Under pre- 
tence, then, of a design to return to a currency which shall be 
all specie, we are likely to have a currency in which there shall 
be no specie at all. We are in danger of being overwhelmed 
with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor 
silver; no, Sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad 
faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors, and a ruined peo- 
ple. This, I fear, Sir, may be the consequence, already alarm- 
ingly near, of this attempt, unwise if it be real, and grossly 
fraudulent if it be only pretended, of establishing an exclusively 
hard-money currency. 

But, Sir, if this shock could be avoided, and if we could reach 
the object of an exclusive metallic circulation, we should find in 
that very success serious and insurmountable inconveniences. 
We require neither irredeemable paper, nor yet exclusively hard 
money. We require a mixed system. We require specie, and 
we require, too, good bank paper, founded on specie, representing 
specie, and convertible into specie on demand. We require, in 
short, just such a currency as we have long enjoyed, and the ad- 
vantages of which we seem now, with unaccountable rashness, 
about to throw away. 

I avow myself, therefore, decidedly against the object of a 
return to an exclusive specie currency. I find great difficulty, I 
confess, in believing any man serious in avowing such an object. 
It seems to me rather a subject for ridicule, at this age of the 
world, than for sober argument. But if it be true that any are 
serious for the return of the gold and silver age, I am seriously 
against it. 

wet us, Sir, anticipate, in imagination, the accomplishment of 
this grand experiment. Let us suppose that, at this moment, 
all bank paper were out of existence, and the country full of spe- 
cie. Where, Sir, should we put it, and what should we do with 
it? Should we ship it, by cargoes, every day, from New York 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 543 


to New Orleans, and from New Orleans back to New York? 
Should we encumber the turnpikes, the railroads, and the steam- 
boats with it, whenever purchases and sales were to be made in 
one place of articles to be transported to another? The carriage 
of the money would, in some cases, cost half as much as the car- 
riage of the goods. Sir, the very first day, under such a state of 
things, we should set ourselves about the creation of banks. This 
would immediately become necessary and unavoidable. We 
may assure ourselves, therefore, without danger of mistake, that 
the idea of an exclusively metallic currency is totally incompat- 
ible, in the existing state of the world, with an active and exten- 
sive commerce. It is inconsistent, too, with the greatest good 
of the greatest number; and therefore I oppose it. 


But, Sir, how are we to get through the first experiment, so 
as to be able to try that which is to be final and ultimate, that 
is to say, how are we to get rid of the State banks? How is 
this to be accomplished? Of the Bank of the United States, 
indeed, we may free ourselves readily ; but how are we to anni- 
hilate the State banks? We did not speak them into being; 
we cannot speak them out of being. They did not originate in 
any exercise of our power; nor do they owe their continuance 
to our indulgence. ‘They are responsible to the States; to us 
they are irresponsible. We cannot act upon them; we can only 
act with them; and the expectation, as it would appear, is, that, 
by zealously codperating with the government in carrying into 
operation its new theory, they may disprove the necessity of 
their own existence, and fairly work themselves out of the world! 
Sir, Task once more, Is a great and intelligent community to 
endure patiently all sorts of suffering for fantasies like these? 
How charmingly practicable, how delightfully probable, all this 
looks! 

I find it impossible, Mr. President, to believe that the removal 
of the deposits arose in any such purpose as is now avowed. I 
believe all this to be an after-thought. 'The removal was re- 
solved on as a strong measure against the bank; and now that 
it has been attended with consequences not at all apprehended 
from it, instead of being promptly retracted, as it should have 
been, it is to be justified on the ground of a grand experiment, 
above the reach of common sagacity, and dropped down, as it 


044 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


were, from the clouds, “to witch the world with noble policy.” 
It is not credible, not possible, Sir, that, six months ago, the 
administration suddenly started off to astonish mankind with 
its new inventions in politics, and that it then began its mag- 
nificent project by removing the deposits as its first operation. 
No, Sir, no such thing. The removal of the deposits was a 
blow at the bank, and nothing more; and if it had succeeded, 
we should have heard nothing of any project for the final put 
ting down of all State banks. No, Sir, not one word. We 
should have heard, on the contrary, only of their usefulness, 
their excellence, and their exact adaptation to the uses and 
necessities of this government. But the experiment of making 
successful use of State banks having failed, completely failed, 
in this the very first endeavor; the State banks having already 
proved themselves not able to fill the place and perform the 
duties of a national bank, although highly useful in their appro- 
priate sphere; and the disastrous consequences of the measures 
of government coming thick and fast upon us, the professed 
object of the whole movement is at once changed, and the cry 
now is, Down with all the State banks! Down with all the State 
banks! and let us return to our embraces of solid gold and solid 
silver! 

Sir, I have no doubt that, if there are any persons in the 
country who have seriously wished for such an event as the ex- 
tinction of all banks, they have not, nevertheless, looked for the 
absence of all paper circulation. ‘They have only looked for 
issues of paper from another quarter. We have already had 
distinct intimations that paper might be issued on the foun- 
dation of the revenue. The treasury of the United States is 
intended to become the Bank of the United States, and the 
Secretary of the Treasury is meant to be the great national 
banker. Sir, to say nothing of the crudity of such a notion, I 
may be allowed to make one observation upon it. We have, 
heretofore, heard much of the danger of consolidation, and of 
the great and well-grounded fear of the union of all powers in 
this government. Now, Sir, when we shall be brought to the 
state of things in which all the circulating paper of the country 
shall be issued directly by the treasury department, under the 
immediate control of the executive, we shall have consolidation 
with a witness! 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 545 


Mr. President, this experiment will not amuse the people of 
this country. ‘They are quite too serious to be amused. Their 
suffering is too intense to be sported with. Assuredly, Sir, 
they will not be patient as bleeding lambs under the deprivation 
of great present good, and the menace of unbearable future 
evils. ‘They are not so unthinking, so stupid, I may almost say, 
as to forego the rich blessings now in their actual enjoyment, 
and trust the future to the contingencies and the chances which 
may betide an unnecessary and a wild experiment. They wil! 
not expose themselves at once to injury and to ridicule. They 
will not buy reproach and scorn at so deara rate. They will 
not purchase the pleasure of being laughed at by all mankind 
at a price quite so enormous. 

Mr. President, the objects avowed in this most extraordinary 
measure are altogether undesirable. The end, if it could be 
obtained, is an end fit to be strenuously avoided; and the pro- 
cess adopted to carry on the experiment, and to reach that end 
(which it can never attain, and which, in that respect, wholly 
fails), does not fail, meantime, to spread far and wide a deep 
and general distress, and to agitate the country beyond any 
thing which has heretofore happened to us in a time of peace. 

Sir, the people, in my opinion, will not support this experi- 
ment. They feel it to be afflictive, and they see it to be ridicu- 
lous; and ere long, I verily believe, they will sweep it away 
with the resistless breath of their own voice, and bury it up with 
the great mass of the detected delusions and rejected follies of 
other times. I seek, Sir, to shun all exaggeration. I avoid 
studiously all inflammatory over-statement, and all emblazoning. 
But I beseech gentlemen to open their eyes and their ears to 
what is passing in the country, and not to deceive themselves 
with the hope that things can long remain as they are, or that 
any beneficial change will come until the present policy shall be 
totally abandoned. I attempted, Sir, the other day, to describe 
shortly the progress of the public distress. Its first symptom 
Was spasm, contraction, agony. It seized first the commercial 
and trading classes. Some survive it, and some do not. But 
those who, with whatever loss, effort, and sacrifice, get through 
the crisis without absolute bankruptcy, take good care to make 
no new engagements till there shall be a change of times. 
They abstain from all further undertakings; and this brings the 

46 * 


546 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


pressure immediately home to those who live by their employ- 
ments. That great class now begin to feel the distress. Houses, 
warehouses, and ships are not now, as usual, put under con- 
tract in the cities. Manufacturers are beginning to dismiss their 
hands on the sea-coast and in the interior; and our artisans and 
mechanics, acting for themselves only, are likely soon to feel 
a severe want of employment in their several occupations. 

This, Sir, is the real state of things. It is a state of things 
which is daily growing worse and worse. It calls loudly for 
remedy; the people demand remedy, and they are likely to per- 
sist in that demand till remedy shall come. For one, I have no 
new remedy to propose. My sentiments are known. I am for 
rechartering the bank, for a longer or a shorter time, and with 
more or less of modification. J am for trying no new experi- 
ments on the property, the Rate y egies and the happiness of 
the whole people. 

Our proper course appears to me to be as plain and direct as 
the Pennsylvania Avenue. The evil which the country endures, 
although entirely new in its extent, its depth, and its severity, is 
not new in its class. Other such like evils, but of much milder 
form, we have felt in former times. In former times, we have 
been obliged to encounter the pernicious effects of a disordered 
currency, of a general want of confidence, and of depreciated 
State bank paper. ‘To these evils we have applied the remedy 
of a well-constituted national bank, and have found it effectual. 
I am for trying it again. Approved by forty years’ experience, 
sanctioned by all successive administrations, and by Congress at 
all times, and called for, as I verily believe, at this very moment, 
by a vast majority of the people, on what ground do we resist 
the remedy of a national bank? It is painful, Sir, most painful, 
to allude to the extraordinary position of the different branches 
of the government; but it is necessary to allude to it. This 
house has once passed a bill for rechartering the present bank. 
The other house has also passed it, but it has been negatived by 
the President; and it is understood that strong objections exist 
with the executive to any bank incorporated, or to be incorpo- 
rated, by Congress. 

Sir, I think he country calls, and has a right to call, on the 
executive to reconsider these objections, if they do exist. Per- 
emptory objections to all banks created by Congress have not 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 047 


yet been formally announced. I hope they will not be. I think 
the country demands a revision of any opinions which may have 
been formed on this matter, and requires, in its own name, and 
for the sake of the suffering people, that one man’s opinion, 
however elevated, may not oppose the general judgment. No 
man in this country should say, in relation to a subject of such 
immense interest, that his single will shall be the law. 

It does not become any man, in a government like this, to 
stand proudly on his own opinion, against the whole country, 
I shall not believe, until it shall be so proved, that the executive 
will so stand. He has himself more than once recommended 
the subject to the consideration of the people, as a subject to be 
discussed, reasoned on, and decided. And if the public will, 
manifested through its regular organs, the houses of Congress, 
shall demand a recharter for a longer or a shorter time, with 
modifications to remove reasonable and even plausible objec- 
tions, | am not prepared to believe that the decision of the two 
houses, thus acting in conformity to the known will of the 
people, will meet a flat negative. I shall not credit that, till I 
see it. I certainly shall propose, ere long, if no change or no 
other acceptable proposition be made, to make the trial. As I 
see no other practical mode of relief, I am for putting this to the 
test. The first thing to be done is to approve or disapprove the 
Secretary’s reasons. Let us come to the vote, and dispose of 
those reasons. In the mean time, public opinion is manifesting 
itself. It appears to me to grow daily stronger and stronger. 
The moment must shortly come when it will be no longer doubt- 
ful whether the general public opinion does call for a recharter 
of the bank. When that moment comes, I am for passing the 
measure, and shall propose it. I believe it will pass this house; 
I believe it cannot be, and will not be, defeated in the other, un- 
less relief appears in some other form. 

Public opinion will have its way in the houses of legislation 
and elsewhere. ‘The people are sovereign; and whatever they 
determine to obtain must be yielded to them. ‘This is my be- 
lief, and this is my hope. I am for a bank as a measure of ex- 
pediency, and, under our present circumstances, a measure of 
necessity. I yield to no new-fangled opinions, to no fantastical] 
experiments. I stand by the tried policy of the country. I go 
for the safety of property, for the protection of industry, for the 


048 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


security of the currency. And, for the preservation of all these 
great ends, I am for a bank; and, as the measure most likely to 
succeed, I am for continuing this bank, with modifications, for a 
longer or a shorter period. This is the measure which I shall 
propose, and on this question I refer myself, without hesitation, 
to the decision of the country. 


At a subsequent period of the same debate, in answer to observations 
of Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Webster said : — 


The gentleman asks, What could be done if this house 
should pass a bill renewing the bank charter, and the other 
house should reject it? Sir, all I can say to this is, that the 
question would then be one between that other house and the 
people. I speak, Sir, of that honorable house with the same 
respect as of this. Neither is likely to be found acting, for a 
long time, on such a question as this, against the clear and well- 
ascertained sense of the country. Depend upon it, Sir, depend 
upon it, this “experiment” cannot succeed. It will fail, it has 
failed, it is a complete failure already. 

Something, then, is to be done, and what is it? Congress 
cannot adjourn, leaving the country in its present condition. 
This is certain. Each house, then, as I think, will be obliged 
to propose something, or to concur in something. Public opin- 
ion will require it. Negative votes settle nothing. If either 
house should vote against a bank to-day, nothing would be 
determined by it, except for the moment. The proposition 
would be renewed, or something else proposed. ‘The great erro1 
lies in imagining that the country will be quieted and settled, if 
one house, or even both, should pass votes approving the conduct 
of the Secretary in removing the public deposits. 'This is a grand 
mistake. ‘I'he disturbing and exciting causes exist, not in men’s 
opinions, but in men’s affairs. It is not a question of theoretic 
right or wrong, but a question of deep suffering, and of neces- 
sary relief. No votes, no decisions, still less any debates in 
Congress, will restore the country to its former condition with- 
out the interposition and aid of some positive measure of relief. 
Such a measure will be proposed; it will, I trust, pass this 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 549 


house. Should it be rejected elsewhere, the consequences will 
not lie at our door. But I have the most entire belief, that, from 
absolute necessity, and from the imperative dictate of the public 
will, a proper measure must pass, and will pass, into the form 
of law. 

The honorable gentleman, like others, always takes it for 
granted, as a settled point, that the people of the United States 
have decided that the present bank shall not be renewed. I he- 
lieve no such thing. I see no evidence of any such decision. It 
is easy to assume all this. ‘The Secretary assumed it, and gen- 
tlemen follow his example, and assume it themselves. Sir, I 
think the lapse of a few months will correct the mistake, both 
of the Secretary and of the gentlemen. 

The honorable member has suggested another idea, calcu- 
lated, perhaps, to produce a momentary impression, which has 
been urged in other quarters. It is, that, if the bank charter 
be renewed now, it will necessarily become perpetual. Sir, if 
the gentleman only means that, if we now admit the necessity 
or utility of a national bank, we must always, for similar rea- 
sons, have one hereafter, I say with frankness, that, in my opin- 
ion, until some great change of circumstances shall take place, 
a national institution of that kind will always be found useful. 
But if he desires to produce a belief that a renewal of its charter 
now would make this bank perpetual, under its present form, or 
under any form, I do not at all concur in his opinion. Sir, no- 
body proposes to renew the bank, except for a limited period. 
At the expiration of that period, it will be in the power of Con- 
gress, just as fully as it is now, to continue its charter still further, 
or to amend it, or let it altogether expire. And what harm or 
danger is there in this? ‘The charter of the Bank of England, 
always granted for limited periods, has been often renewed, with 
various conditions and alterations, and has now existed, I think, 
under these renewals, nearly one hundred and fifty years. Its 
last term of years was about expiring recently, and the Reform 
Parliament have seen no wiser way of proceeding than to incor- 
porate into it such amendments as experience had shown neces- 
sary, and to give it a new lease. And this, as it appears to me, 
is precisely the course which the interest of the people of the 
United States requires in regard to our own bank. The danger 
of perpetuity is wholly unfounded, and all alarm on that score 


oo0 THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 


is but false alarm. The bank, if renewed, will be as much sub- 
ject to the will and pleasure of Congress as a new bank with a 
similar charter, and will possess no more claim than a new one 
for further continuance hereafter. 

The honorable gentleman quotes me, Mr. President, as having 
said, on a former occasion, that, if Congress shall refuse to re- 
charter the bank, the country will yet live through the difficulty. 
Why, certainly, Sir, I trust it will live through it. I believe the - 
country capable of self-government, and that they will remedy 
not only such evils as they cannot live through, but other evils 
also, which they could live through, and which they would bear, 
if necessary, but which, nevertheless, being great evils, and 
wholly unnecessary, they are not disposed to endure. Is the 
gentleman entirely satisfied, if he can only persuade himself 
that the country can live under the evils inflicted on it by these 
measures of the executive government? Sir, I doubt not the 
people will live through their difficulties; and one way of living 
through them is to put a speedy close to them. ‘The people 
have only to will it, and all their present sufferings are at an 
end. ‘These sufferings flow from no natural cause. They come 
net from famine or pestilence, nor from invasion or war, nor 
from any external public calamity. They spring directly and 
exclusively from the unwise and unjustifiable interference of the 
Secretary of the Treasury with the public moneys. By this 
single act, he has disordered the revenue, deranged the eurrency, 
broken up commercial confidence, created already a thousand 
bankruptcies, and brought the whole business of the country 
into a state of confusion and dismay. ‘This is a political evil, 
and a political evil only. It arises from mismanagement entirely 
and exclusively. This mismanagement, this sole cause of the 
whole distress, the people can correct. They have but to speak 
the word, and it is done. They have but to say so, and the 
public treasure will return to its proper place, and the public 
prosperity resume its accustomed course. 

They have but to utter this supreme command, these words 
of high behest; they have but to give to'the public voice that 
imperative unity which all must hear, and all must obey; and 
the reign of misrule and the prevalence of disaster will expire 
together. Public sufferings will then be removed by removing 
their cause. Political mischiefs will be repaired by political re-. 


THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. 551 


dress. ‘That which has been unwisely done will be wisely un- 
done; and this is the way, Sir, in which an enlightened and in- 
dependent people live through their difficulties. And, Sir, I look 
to no other source for relief; but I look confidently to this. I 
dare not, indeed, under present appearances, predict an immedi- 
ate termination of present trouble; that would be rash. It may 
take time for the people to understand one another in different 
parts of the country, and to unite in their objects and in their 
means. Circumstances may delay this union of purpose and 
union of effort. I know there are powerful causes, now in full 
activity, which may not only prolong, but increase, the commo- 
tion of the political elements. I see indications that a storm is 
on the wing. I am not ignorant of the probable approach of a 
crisis in which contending parties, and contending passions, are 
to be intensely excited; in which the great interests of the coun- 
try are all to be deeply convulsed; and which, in its consequen- 
ces, may even touch the action of the government itself. In 
preparing to meet such a crisis, should it come, I found myself 
on those great truths which our own experience and the experi- 
ence of all other nations have established. I yield to no new- 
fangled theories, to no wild and rash experiments. I stand, too, 
upon those high duties which the Constitution of the country 
has devolved upon us; and thus holding on, and holding fast, 
by acknowledged truth and manifest duty, I shall take events as 
they come; and although these black and portentous clouds 
may break on our heads, and the tempest overpower us for a 
while, still that can never be for ever overwhelmed, that can never 
go finally to the bottom, which truth and duty bear up. 


END OF VOLUME THIRD. 

















Cm 


re 


re Caan es 


4 


» 


od 


tHe 


ee ege” iis | 


=. 
ad 
5 








: wy 


3 caste Eis 


Da By Me, 
"a TRY fat R= 
se Pige A eh p : 
\y ce ihe ae Bi pes is 
* pera | 


i) 











EI te: Ni era = re a ‘* >. > ~ me SCOR CE <<a SS “6S . 
KK EK <i [CCC EL 


5 


Cad «<<< 
GK CC EE 
OP. CEE 
CCK 


Mae Geek Caa « ac 
aes < 0 CEO Ka 
« Lance Oe 


CS 


KES <<@ mee 
<n at ane oe : 
KCK Kee 


GC 
& 


MC CCR 
ae EK <a ce «x — 
EE GE FE Ei ara 




















<i 
CH =<: 
=X a 
PS ie 
< Say ay Oh 
mL Cars » Ea e, <x 
rs ae eR SER: Ki 
CK << <i ce MQecce. << 
Tt ez « —_ eS 
=P pe , S 2 Ka <<: 
RE KeRO ae EK 
Ke S SiG 
eC 4 € < « 
Rc ee CME gg 
KC Sie 
Cee < S x Cec 
Kc . €3 t Ce ete 
(<<< ( WCRe c. 
«< BOK GEE 
< c . . € . r4 
<<a oun; Sar < 
CC Ci ian 
Com <q iC GG 
Ce «= CE CH 
cS Cae € 
OES ae 
CIE << ES 
<a a oar 
OR GE acc 
cx «er < Kc ic @ 
—~* 


A 
‘ 
A 
A 

R 


~ Tala | 
aA 
AeA 
AN 
nw 


ey PA | 
A 
al 








KC ae 
CS KC CCE 
ae @ “Care 
CK OOK, 
Cc © 





UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 


TIN 


0112 004546286 


P_ 22 | 





